Expanding on what diddydicky has said, every solicitor is bound to advise their client (or as called "the retainer") on all pitfalls and hidden pitfalls. This case law from the Court of Appeal refers to buying a property. The buyer was experienced in negotiations as to property but was not experienced in law. IF you contact a solicitor do NOT go asking for what are the pitfalls and what are the hidden pitfalls. Just ask them to advise whether it is worth proceeding or not. It IS their duty to tell you what they think. Hence, if they do not advise you of these you can actually sue them for Professional Negligence. Reeves -v- Thrings & Long [1996] PNLR 265 1996 CA Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Simon Brown LJ, Hobhouse LJ Legal Professions, Professional Negligence Solicitors were sued for failing to advise their client fully as to the wisdom of the transaction he was entering into. The client was an experienced businessman. Held: (Hobhouse LJ) "Once Mr Reeves was told what the legal position was, he required no further advice from Mr Sheppard in order to evaluate its implications and commercial significance. Mr Reeves was an experienced businessman and under no disability." (Simon Brown LJ) "I cannot accept that Mr Sheppard was under any further duty to his client, any duty to advise him upon the commercial implications or importance of the access provision or to warn him against the risks that it might pose for the future development, operation or sale of the hotel. These matters are well within the client's competence to appreciate and evaluate for himself, business considerations rather than legal ones." (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, dissenting) "It will always be relevant to consider what the solicitor is asked to do, the nature of the transaction and the standing and experience of the client. Thus on the facts here Mr Sheppard was not retained to advise on the wisdom of offering the price Mr Reeves had informally agreed to pay … But it was in my view Mr Sheppard's duty to draw Mr Reeves' attention to any pitfall, particularly any hidden pitfall, the contract might contain."

And, learn to fight mean. You can attach (for the benefit of the Judge) a copy of the form they sent you. Then in court just pick up "Chris's" form and refer to item 10 and item 11. When the Judge says something like "I do not have item 10 and item 11" just reply "Sorry Judge, I picked up a copy I had been sent by a friend to compare it with my copy. Now maybe our friend representing the Claimant can explain why there are two different forms". And watch the solicitors face drop. ;)

Simple. You send a copy of what you got to Chris and Chris sends a copy of his to you. THEN, IF it goes to Court you can put in your defence what you have just said i.e. cannot be 9 and 11 questions. So which is correct and why the difference. Then let them answer. Do NOT forget, you will be the Lip. It will get transferred to your local County Court. The creditor may be miles away from where you live so they have to appoint a local firm to represent them. That solicitor is only going to receive a briefing. You know the full story. He does not. Put him in dispute. As to Chris (sorry DD) he is actually in a better position as if he receives a DN then he can contest it on the PPI charges (for a start) as being unlawful and therefore a faulty DN.

Also, any default charges on this account made by RBS? I take it you know by now what this refers to.

Right. Now to show you how easily a person can make a mistake and that can be used against that person (which is why you have to THINK before you OPEN you gob). Playing the Devils Advocate: Question: You say that this was the card used for any purchases. All the other cards were balance transfers every six months or so. So if you take one card and you transfer that balance to another card, how come on the card that you transfered from you still owe money? Now answer that question. What you have to also understand is that a Judge will be evaluating how you reply and what you say. The honesty. The integrity. Shall he believe you or not. And, actually this was told to me by my own solicitor.................. In Court they can throw a load of $hit at the ceiling and hope that some of it sticks. The idea is to simply discredit you. (Yep. My solicitor is very polite and uses words of choice :D:D).

Out of curiousity, you say in the letter that they have written that they cannot send you a copy of the executed agreement. You are sure of this? You have this in writing?

I mean, I have got to say......... wow! How about this one. :D As a registered debt collection agency you are licensed by the OFT and therefore have promised to abide by guidelines set out by the OFT. Should you fail to abide by the rules and conditions you undertook to obtain your license, I believe it is understood you can be reported to said OFT so that you can be investigated as to whether you are fit to hold said license :D

Once again, as said, very impressed. Have a look at this. The reason I have edited a bit is because you have used some wrong words (e.g. you do not call contacting me "conversations" but they are called "communications"). Also have added some more info. Also when writing to a DCA especially when you are in the right you do not ask. You demand. And, the other thing is, if they have failed to send a CCA copy and have written that they cannot send one, then you do not ask for it again. But as you will see, the majority is yours. Good show. Impressed. Dear Sirs I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing. As I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls I am now demanding that all further communication from your company to be made in writing only. I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Please note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and you will have committed an offence under the Communications Act (2003) s.127. Therefore I reserve the right to report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to prosecution and a substantial fine. Be advised that considering I am notifying you that you must not contact me by phone again, then and under the Data Protection Act, you have to remove my telephone number from your records being in whichever way/form it is held and that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. As a registered debt collection agency you are licensed by the OFT and therefore have promised to abide by guidelines set out by the OFT. Should you fail to abide by the rules and conditions you undertook to obtain your license, I believe it is understood you can be reported to said OFT so that you can be investigated as to whether you are fit to hold said license I refer you to the following from the OFT Guidelines namely: Physical/psychological harassment 2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive. 2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment Deceptive and/or unfair methods 2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair. 2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: f. passing on debtor details to debt management companies without the debtors' informed prior consent i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt. Considering section 2.8f, I am now demanding a copy of the letter from the original creditor asking for my consent to have passed my data to your company. Furthermore you must also include a copy of my written response to such a request confirming my authority for my details to be passed onto yourselves. If you fail to supply this, not only will you be in breach of 2.8f above but will also be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. In respect of the above paragraph, I require your written response including copies of both letters to reach myself in no longer than 14 days. Also as you have advised me by letter on numerous occasions that you cannot obtain a signed executed agreement as I requested under the legislation contained within s.78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the law states this account is in dispute and therefore unenforceable and has been since 19/11/09. You are to note that you are currently in breach of all the above guidelines. Furthermore, should you be unable to make available the above requested documents within the stipulated time, then you are acting contrary to the terms and conditions you agreed to abide by when applying for your license. Should this be the case then you are to take this letter as a service of a section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and cease and desist from handling my personal data any further. You are also to take notice that you are to cease and desist from contacting me again and failure of this I will be reporting your company to the OFT for investigation.

Very good. Nice letter. Got some "wrong words" put but very good. Give me a few minutes and I would put an edited version of it (mostly will be the same but some small changes and additions).

30 minutes. And remember that the first thing a solicitor learns is to hear a lot, ask a lot but not give a lot. And you will find that in those 30 minutes you have basically gathered nothing. Then again, solicitors also make mistakes and there are ways of getting round paying them. (Well does not work all the time but I have had it work twice for me). Edit: Darn that diddydicky. Beat me to it.

See they also talk about PPI (Protection Payment Insurance) on the DN. Have you got this? :D

If you were to put something like that in front of a Judge you will have him confused. To see if understood correctly, you wrote to the FOS. The FOS wrote back saying they wanted a final responce from the bank before they can become involved and sent you a complaint form to fill in. Did you get final response from the bank? Or did you just stop filling in the forms because you got the copy of the agreement (even though contesting its validity).

You do know that most solicitors (unless they have known you for a long time) work on payment up front? Also you do know that a solicitor is entitled to charge you 8% interest if you do not pay his bill? You do know that a solicitor can sharpish get a Court order if you do not pay?

Here is an argument being put forward. See if you agree with it or submit your contentions. It involves writing to the bank contesting the documents sent. Bank replies with usual bla bla bla. Debtor notifies bank that will be seeking assistance from the FOS. Because the FOS will not get involved until there is a Final response from the bank, he needs to get this from the bank. He writes to the FOS. While waiting for a reply bank defaults him/her. The banks know that the FOS has something like a 6 month backlog. Can this not be used as Unfair Relationship? i.e. Knowing the FOS has a backlog and knowing that the debtor was writing to the FOS (which is a goverment appointed body to control the banks) I would take this to be an Unfair Relationship. Comments welcome.

I have said this before as well. The only thing a solicitor is really interested in is his wallet and bank account. And.......... have said this before as well, if you file a complaint with the Solicitor Complaints service what you are actually told is "You have to realise that you cannot expect an excellent service but only a decent service". So go and pay them £180 an hour + VAT and expect only a decent service.

Read, learn, ask, challenge if need be, put your way of thinking and expect to be challenged and corrected, do not just cut and paste but modify to your need/case, put things forward and see if anybody agrees or points you to any mistakes, create your own case/defence and ask for it to be challenged Then when you are in court you know what you are talking about.

Been saying that for ages. One of my repeated comments is that some just learn parrot wise and if it comes to anything they do not know how to answer.

First of all you need to find more information. It is very stupid to assume. e.g. Who was it that issued the claim? Did the person send a s.78 application? What was the reply? IF any problem did he/she file a dispute? You cannot assume anything unless you learn what is what.

Well the first thing I noticed is that you spacing is still total and absolute cr@p. :D:D Letter to FOS dated 16th December: a: Was that sent by at least recorded mail? b: Any reply from the FOS? Letter to the bank dated 15th December was that sent at least by recorded mail? 3 Questions to answer.

You talking dirty again??? :razz:

Post 1544 above.

In my opinion (might be wrong) what they are trying to do is to close the part where you can contest if the agreement is enforceable because it had faults in its T&Cs.

To be honest, I do not really care what the OFT says unless it is in my favour. Once again, the Judges do not make the laws and neither does the OFT. The OFT can guide but it cannot change the law and the Judge is there to enforce the law. Law is passed by parlament, approved by the House of Lords and then enacted by the Queen and Lord Barrons. BUT........ what the OFT is basically saying is very simple: You took the money. You spent the money. You had been paying the bank. Statements were sent to you. Etc etc etc The above shows you owe money and at one time there was an agreement. No bank lends out money without an agreement of sorts only a loan shark does this and you still have an agreement with him that if you do not pay he will break your legs. Hence on the rule of probability UNLESS you can prove otherwise OR you can prove that the agreement is unenforceable then you are going to be found guilty. In my opinion, what has happened is that too many people read......... Oh! I send a s.78 application. I get no reply. Debt wiped off. It does not work that way. You have to read, study, ask, disect letters and what is being said. Then you decide whether or not to take action or keep paying. BUT the bright side is that anybody who loses the hearing and who has been hammered with say a default with the CRAs and has been pushed by the bank/DCA to pay a lot of money a month at least if you lose in court you can ask to pay only token payments pending on your income and other outgoings.

Sorry I could not reply before but have mega other things to do. Right, so will give you that one. Would have been better if it said "Shall" then saying "Should". BUT, not bringing the originals and only bringing copies means that the original does not exist. Then it becomes their problem to prove that the copies are a true copy of the original. And using something like photoshop to take something that the court had sent you and modifying it, then presenting it as "a copy of the original" should show that "copies of originals" can be easily faked. Hence you then ask the Judge to order that the originals are presented for inspection.

Have you been on MCOL site to check the progress of the claim? You should have the details on the claim how to access the information.