Tingy Several earlier responses seem to have vanished but some (perceived?) personal digs which prompted them initially sadly remain. I take issue with comments/allegations that any of my posts will have done any other CAGGER harm. I shall continue to drive my car without ever opening the bonnet to analyse why it goes without needing any horses to pull it - and also will never try to get to grips with the Bernouilli principle before getting into a plane. If it ain't broke - don't fix it - and certainly don't hand a spanner to the other side, or hit an ally with it. So far CPUTR doesn't seem to need "fixed" and it seems to work just fine. You make a very valid point about other legislation - like from EU etc. I totally agree CPUTR is not the ONLY weapon - but currently it seems pretty powerful - almost like a Cruise missile (which I actually do understand a bit about - with it being based on rocket science) - but I won't try to bore you all with any explanation, theory or questions on just how it works! BD

Car I'm not so sure that some CAGGERs are not (presumably unwittingly) actually helping the other side and I do believe CAG is a valuable source of intelligence to them - how do we explain the vast numbers of guests otherwsie? Another unwanted consequence of intense detailed argument (esepcially when based largely on as yet unproven theory and suppositions) is that threads get VERY big and over complex. In a nutshell I think PriorityOne has identified an (almost) "golden bullet" which (currently at least) seems to get the OC or DCA to "shut up" if they can't "put up". For me (and I suspect the vast majority of CAGGERs) this is all we need to know - unless and until the "other side" comes up with an antidote (preferably of their own making) - as currently it seems a very easy and low cost way of kicking threats etc. into touch - hopefully long enough to allow SB to kick in. No doubt as this weapon grows in effectiveness (as with the bank charges, PPI, dodgy DN's and TN's etc.) it will, through time, get tested in court - probably with varying results. When we have evidence of this then - yes of course - let's fully test out the pros and cons - and attempt to understand the court's "logic" with a view to strengthening our own subsequent cases. Until then I think we should just fire off P1's golden bullets and watch the blood spill with relish. This is JMHO - no claims that I'm definitely right - but I'm pretty sure I'm not (yet) wrong! This is definitely the (current) route I'll be using for any creditors who get heavy in the forerseeable future. BD

Peter As someone who is interested purely in the PRACTICAL EFFECTS of legislation rather than how/why/if they should work as it appears they do, it seems obvious that CPUTR 2008 is a currently VERY POWERFUL TOOL at getting OC's and DCA's to SHUT UP if they can't PUT UP. Many contributors to P1's other thread have testified that after a CPUTR 2008 the OC or DCA goes away - to me that's good enough and I'm not really bothered about whether a debt "still exists" or even if it's still "enforcible" or not - only that it ISN'T enforced - and I'll then simply await SB kicking in. In other words I'm not too bothered about WINNING against OC's and DCA's - just interested in NOT LOSING - and in the simplest most practical way to ensure this! Hopefully your contribution will not give them some food for thought that they have been scared by this CPUTR 2008 a little too easily - and be encouraged to try to get your theories tested in court - or use them to scare more of us into just paying up? I'm sure that was/is not your intention? Finally in answer to your questing about "indemic breaches" I think the track records of most (all?) OC's and DCA's in failing to issue compliant DN's for well over 30 years (since 1974 until very recently) is ample evidence that indemic breaches DO occur in the largest (and most "reputable" ????) of creditors! BD

They will have been told by Halifax to chase you. I think this is against the OFT debt collection guidelines (google this and susan edwards of oft for a copy of this). In any case I would ignore DCA2 for the moment but write to Halifax expressing "puzzlement" at hearing from DCA2 now - as you thought you were negotiating with DCA1 and that DCA1 was authorised by Halifax to negotiate an F&F - say nothing about amount or counter offer etc. Let them do the work and wait and see what happens. If DCA1 write again then just send a similar letter asking for proof they have Halifax's authority to negotiate. At least you'll be giving them some work to do that will need a non template reply from them! Good luck! BD

I believe Alistair Darlings "bonus tax" and the threats to legislate if they didn't voluntarily start behaving more fairly were both steps in the right direction - admittedly too little and a bit late - but this old Etonian mob seem to be allowing the banks to pay huge bonuses despite still making losses, suggesting the Banks's previous (?) bonus culture was not in any way to blame for the current economic crisis - by claiming it should all be laid at the door of Brown and Blair. These claims are made despite it being a world wide crisis affecting every developed country no matter how right or left wing their Government was at the time. On your second point I've never understood the English predeliction to acquiesce to the "ruling classes" (as David Cameron's octagenerian uncle observed so accurately last week) - but lets agree to differ on this side issue and focus on the key topic here? I presume we're on the same side in wanting the Banks to get their come uppance for fleecing their poorest and most vulnerable customers so badly for so long? BD

OK - perhaps "honour" was the wrong word or sentiment to use as it doesn't exist in the Banks' vocabulary. However I think they were being more pragmatic after the SC ruling (seeing the risk of their behaviour being attacked in other ways as actually suggested by the SC judges) and so they were starting to move in the right direction - many were abolishing these charges with these and any overdraft interest being replaced by £1 daily overdraft charges (still not great but much smaller penalties to most who incurred them) - and setting published limits on how much they would charge per month in the way of unfair charges - but this wasn't out of "honour" - more out of fear that a more left wing government would either bring in more taxes aimed at the banks - or legislation to outlaw such unfair charges. Now they feel very safe with the hoi ploi firmly in its place! BD

I am not entering this "debate" as I have no formal legal knowledge to equip me to do so - only a Rocket Science degree augmented by around 40 years post graduate expereince in the University of Adult Life. I used to understand Rocket Science and things likeWave Particle Duality, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (but not sure about this now) and Einstein's Theory of Relativity (and why Time travel is theoretically possible). However I have NEVER understood much of what our Legal Systems call "justice". To provide some HARD FACTUAL INFORMATION. This site abounds with countless examples to support Car's post #46 above - where claimants have challenged the Credit Card companies to PROVE or SUBSTANTIATE their claim that their new "lower and fair"£12 charges are "fair". I know of many cases where the card companies have chickened out of doing so by not going to court - and have paid back ALL the charges - including the first £12 - and ALL associated contractual interest. I know of NO CASES since the OFT report where the card companies have taken this to the wire and gone to court to argue the £12 charge is "fair". I don't believe this was a commercial judgement because it was "cheaper to pay the claims" - as many such claims can be significant four figures or even five figure pay outs. I myself was given over £5k by HBOS as a full refund of all visa credit card default charges and associated contractual interest as soon as I threatened court action! Surely it would certainly cheaper to fight mine or some of the even larger cases - provided they knew they would win? I therefore contend the card companies KNOW they risk being hammered - and getting the precedent set in court - if they fight these claims too - and are happy to accept the status quo where even now the majority of default charges are not claimed back - and those that are by and large accept the fiction that the OFT has deemed £12 to be "fair". I sincerely believe the Banks would probably have continued to pay out most bank charge caases if the OFT had not suck its oar in and muddied the waters with an action where they were totally outmanoeuvered by the collective might of all the Banks and Nationwide. BD

Fortunately the GLC are not being "guided" by the OFT, and won't be pushed into the very narrow cul de sac that the SC ruled on! Even the SC sent out a pretty clear (and highly unusual) message that the "fairness of such bank charges could (should?) be challenged again - but on different grounds. I have every faith the Banks will be well and truly thumped by GLC (and then by many others) in the Scottish Courts - but whether the English courts follow suit is another matter. Perhaps if there was not such a built in right wing majority vote in England (after subtracting the Welsh and Scottish votes) that sees us now once again being "ruled" by an Old Etonian cabinet (history repeating itself?) then the banks might have behaved a bit more humbly (and honourably?) since the May 2010 election? BD

Ford Thanks for your support - even although it didn't get seen by many (including me!). I won't repeat what I said as it seems there are some really sensitive souls around who are VERY easily offended . However I'm pleased to see the fears I mooted (subsequently censored) have (so far) not been realised and hopefully this thread can remain simply a source of advice, relevant information - and hope - to those of us who have followed it since day 1 and are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the great work GLC is doing - quietly, modestly and without seeking huge rewards or public acclaim. Lang may their lum reek! BD

bump

Broooooooooooooooooooce Glad to hear it. I think your tactics are spot on, giving your successes to date. Did LTSB actually REPLY to your CPUTR request to confirm no agreement? BD

Broooooooooooooce Good to hear from you again - Glad to see you rejected LTSB's 28% F&F offer! I've just turned down a 35% offer from Aktiv Kapital on an Egg Loan they must ahve bought for peanuts - have been awaiting S78 complaince from Egg for over 18 months! They cashed my £1 PO - but no CCA sent since! Taking the 35% deal would have got me over the £60k mark - so you would have had to buy all the beers - but it's too good a feeling to have them on the ropes to give in so easily when I think I'll have to pay zilch at the end of the day (so saving a further 35%) - as I think you are experiencing too? Glad to hear of your continued successes against the "common enemy". Good luck! BD

Vic Thnaks for your support. I've noticed I often agree with you which must mean you're often correct! BD PS - I've just realised my wife must run these DCA's. You've described her money collecting tactics perfectly! BD

SJ Can you please set up a link to your thread? Thanks BD

LL £40 per month is hardly a "token" payment. I used to think it was and paid many sums like £40 and £80 per month to several OC's and DCA's - thinking the OC or DCA was being "generous" in accepting them and freezing interest. I then found CAG and have had a number of low F&F's accepted (saving over £50k in the process!) and am now only paying £5 per month to each of two DCA's and zilch to all the others still outstanding. If you do get a DN then you've really nothing to lose by saying "Mum can't/won't help me any more - and all I can pay is £1 a month - here is the first such payment - only bank it if you accept this and agree to freeze all interest and charges - otherwsie return the £1". They'll bank it and ignore the accompanying T&C's - but at least you'll be saving £39 per month from your current position - and you will probably get a better (i.e. lower) F&F offer a lot faster than with the current £40 monthly payments. Hope this helps? BD

Should these letters be marked "without prejudice" - or prefaced along lines of " I do not admit any debt to your company"? I'm just a bit suspicious any F&F offer from an OC or DCA NOT suggesting a figure could be a fishing trip to get us to admit we owe something. BD

Mould I see exactly what you mean now. Many thanks. BD

T That's exactly how I would (and did) treat them! Sometimes it was enough to get the F&F accepted there and then and other times they floated a low F&F - but "this offer is only valid on receipt of an acceptable F&F" - so I sent them it under protest but re-iterated the decison was NOT MINE as the funds were NOT MINE - they then accepted the F&F. Good luck! BD

Mould I had asked the above question a few days ago. Can you please clarify why you think he shot himself in the foot? I'm not disagreeing with you - just seeking to improve my knowledge of how to handle such things going forward. Also given they DID bank the cheque - AND DID NOT REFUTE its purpose within a few days then surely they MUST now accept it as F&F? I recollect other threads on this subject - but can't locate them right now - although one thing I do remember is it seems to be a lot stronger of the cheque accepted was from a third party. Also I would not "ask for proof" of the £24.52 monthly payment agreement - I would just REFUTE this - and it's then up to them to PROVE it - IMHO this is much stronge - provided there is NO SUCH PROOF available. BD t

Caro I don't agree. I think Angel should get the monthly payment agreed BEFORE reclaiming charges (to avoid alienating the other party so they become intransigent) - UNLESS the total to be reclaimed is a significant portion of the current balance - which may substantially reduce how much the monthly payment should be. I do agree she should ask for this refund by cheque or bank transfer - i.e. not just used to reduce the balance - but I don't think it's that unreasonable for this amount to just go to reduce the balance - if that is what the refiunder insists on. BD

W I agree with every said above - just ignore this until/unless they up the ante - which I doubt they ever will. BD

Angel Just catching up. I agree it's probably best to get Court involved re monthly amount to be paid - hopefully based totally on your own I&E only. THEN, when this is in place and can't be changed by the Creditor, put in your claim for refund of ALL charges and contractual interest charged on them. It will not get you a refund but WILL reduce the amount owed - and thus the length of time you need to pay them. AS everyone seems to be saying - Don't worry about charging order. They may well not apply for this if the monthly amounts are being paid regularly, and even if they do, it's pretty toothless unless/until you sell up - and even then, if only a small% of the equity released, it's probably got minimum impact on your future plans/capabilities. Good luck! BD

Shelley I would remove EXACT dates from your posts - and especially from your signature - they help to identify you and many DCA's and OC's are frequently on as "guests". BD

Mould I agree there is no "meeting of minds" here - as £5 F&F is clearly NOT what they meant by "substntial discount" - but I don't know why putting this info on the back of the cheque has done harm in this case. Can you please expand on this bit? Thanks BD

The envelopes will usually have no post mark but a bar code on them which shows when they were actually posted. They will also tell if the letters are sent 1st or 2nd class - and if someone like UK mail or TNT is used instead of Royal Mail - which menas a delay equivalent to 2nd class or longer - all useful if they claim anything is sent 1st class for "serving" purposes. BD