I only mentioned it because the word 'harassment' has soemthing of a legal definition - I would say its overused a lot and most things on here are not really harassment in the true sense of the word. With regards to 'mental toruture' I dunno - if it has really caused mental torture that is a fair description but (not that I am defending them) I am not sure writing a few letters could be classed as mental torture on their part if the average person wouldn't class a few letters as mental torture - they cannot be expected to know everyones individual mental condition - unless they were made aware of course.

From your OP it appears that the first your mother heard about it was the court letter but the HFO letter implies they have written to her before.......? BTW if they have only written to her as many times as you have implied I am not quite sure its harassment, but goign off on a tangent is it fair play to take something to court when you havent actually written to the debtor (although that may be academic here given that they are claiming to have done so. On the plus side it sounds like they dont have much of a case if they cannot provide solid figures and documentation.

There is nothing in there about DC in particular. Have a look at the definition of 'commercial practice'. DC activities are within the scope of that definition. The CPUTR 2008 apply to a DCA just as they would to a supermarket in terms of preventing them from misleading you - the only difference is a DCA and Supermarket would/could mislead you in a different way.

there are only use by - cannot sell after this date best before - can sell after this date it is good practice to make clear the date is coming/past if selling after ebfore before you were lucky to get £20 i have to say any other terms are internal to the shop/manufactuerer such as display or sell by

Peter - to clarify some points for you. The CPUTR 2008 is legislation for use by Trading Standards and the OFT to use against companies that mislead or treat consumers unfairly. One area (amongst many other things) they cover are debt collection practices. Therefore if a DCA misleads a consumer then they could be in breach of the CPUTR 2008. The offences can occur individually - therefore it doesn't necessarily matter if breaches are endemic within a company. They can be prosecuted for doing it once. From a practical point of view though the regulators don't have unlimited resources, therefore they will only act if: a) there has been 1 single major breach of the CPUTR 2008 B) the company in question is doing lots of dodgy things which may be considered insignificant on their own but are having a largescale negeative ffect on consumers. For the latter they would require complaint data from a large number of people. As you have pointed out, if they mislead a consumer they may have commited an offence but the individual has no extra civil rights because of that breach. Someone has linked to a consultation where they are trying to bring in civil rights for consumers when they are mislead - simialr to the wording of the CPUTR but slightly more cut back. Therefore when writing to a DCA a consumer shouldn;t make demands under the CPUTR 2008 but point out that the businesses activities may put them in breach of these regulations and therefore mean an offence has been comitted.

If they did actually threaten to force their way into your house you should have reported it to your local TS who could have looked into it had they wanted to. Reporting it to the OFT will not lead to direct quick action because they are unlikely to research in depth invidiual complaints. As it was almost 6 months ago now I daresay no one will bother looking into it. These kind of threats are far easier to prove offences on that things like too many SDs. A hundred or so people on CAG highlighting SDs doesn't mean too much on its own because a) it doesnt take into account how many SDs CQ actually sent out in relation to how many debtors they are chasing b) its difficult to prove their intention when sending the SD out.

Indeed, once the consumer makes the DCA aware it is SB - the DCA doesn't really have much else to go on. They cannot threaten court and if the consumer knows its SB and is refusing to pay then the DCA will be making needless phonecalls - which would come under harassment.

I dont think I have disputed what you have posted........? The DCG does nothing to prevent a DCA contacting a debtor for a SB debt - what they cannot do, as you have pointed out is keep contacting them if they have made clear they won't be paying the debt because it is SB. What the OFT cannot do is provide a blanket statement to say if debt is SB then thats it, no more chasing. -- Not sure I get your first point. There are plenty of DCAs that employ plenty of people, pay taxes, follow lots of law and claw back legitimate bad debt for their client.

A lot of slagging off for the victim if your local paper is anything like mine!

The Administration of Justice Act section 40 has been replaced by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 where the victim of DCA harassment is a consumer - so you need to amend that.

The first innocent buyer of a financed car retains title I believe. Therefore you as a buyer retained title as you innocently bought the car not knowing there was finance on it - arguable The second person appears an innocent purchaser so they should now have title to the car. There should be no reason the If you are a private individual and didn't misrepresent the car then they have no comeback on you. If you positivley stated there was no finance when (you appear now) unsure then you could possibly be liable for something from the buyer from a civil point of view. The finance company should be chasing the person that owers them the finance. They cannot take the car back from the innocent purchaser who has it now either way. So its unclear why it should affect that persons insurance now.

Both the supply of goods and service act (and section 75 of the consumer credit act if used) will only come into play if there is a breach of contract by the business - that hasn't happened here. As the above poster said, they could challenge it on the Unfair Contract term but I am unsure (even if by some miracle they won) if that would necessarily lead to a refund being made. Presumably they would just have to amend it to say something like if we have to cancel on you we will refund you.

2.3 Admission tickets are non-exchangeable, non-refundable and void if altered. They are not valid for special events that require a separate admission charge. 2.4 Admission tickets will only be exchanged or refunded if Thorpe, in its absolute discretion, chooses to do so. 7. Thorpe will endeavour to ensure that as many rides and attractions as possible are available for use by visitors. However, Thorpe reserves the right, without prior notice and without refund or compensation to close and/or change the programme of rides and attractions and/or the Park's operating hours. Thorpe in its absolute discretion reserves the right without refund or compensation to close the whole or any part of the Park at any time or to restrict the number of persons having access to the Park due to capacity, inclement, weather or special events, to ensure safety, security or order, or if Thorpe considers the circumstances so require http://www.thorpepark.com/misc/terms-and-conditions.aspx --- Sounds a bit unfair on first read but if they closed the park i doubt they would not refund people

If I was your son I would just pick it up and see what they have to say - presumably they want more info End of the day he can tell them to get lost again.

"unless it can be shown that there were a limited number of tickets available for that day and that the sale of these tickets prevented someone else buying tickets." I think that is the crux of the matter. However, given that this term (i.e you dont use it you lose it) is pretty much in the T and Cs of most major service providers OP will have a tough time taking this one on.

What has been happening when your son has been rung? Is he a) ig noring it b) telling them to F off c) telling them he doesn't know who you are d) telling them he knows who you are Arguably if he is just puttingnot picking up the phone then they can keep ringing - because technically they haven't got an answer. If he has told them once that he doesn't know your or he has told them he does know you then they shouldn't keep calling him. Report it, but log all the dates and times of the calls and keep them in the phones memory.

To take someone to ocurt you need a legal basis on which to do it. Can you tell us what legal basis this would come under? Unfortunatley a court cannot be swayed by emotions.

Any complaint made via Consumer Direct will be accesible to the OFT. They no doubt run database checks to see the latest trends etc I am unsure whether they actually WANT people to send stuff in to them or whether its a hassle for them. Afterall if they require evidence they can always phone the complainer back from Consumer Direct data. Also bear in mind many TS departments take responsibility for businesses in their areas, and if one particular company is causing a lot of hassle to consumers in their area then they will look into it. Therefore, things should not totally bypass TS (hence why CD is the best as it makes the data available everywhere).

If you are going to complain you need to complain to your LOCAL Trading Standards - you should do this via Consumer Direct. There is no point complaining directly to the OFT, they are not set up to get involved on behalf on individuals - thats what TS are meant to do - if you complain via Consumer Direct the OFT will have access to the data as they control Consumer Direct.. You should make it clear why you think they are breaking the law. Having evidence helps too.

Unfortunatley I don't think you have much of a legal comeback. Their goodwill offer is pretty good to be honest as they don't even have to offer that IMO.

Its worth pointing out just because you don't see the effects of regulation by way of prosecutions or injunctions in the news that doesn't mean things are not happening 'behind the scenes'. Things would be significantly worse without the regulation we do have - that is not to say things couldn't be better. There is far far more to regulation than a few examples of a company doing something wrong and being prosecuted for it - there are lots of barriers to that.....

If I am reading your post correctly you owe Lloyds a debt and have set up a payment plan. In the meantime you have been contacted by these debt collectors? If it was me I would cc a letter to both Lloyds and the DCA explaining the situation and hope Lloyds call off the DCA. The DCA will just blame Lloyds if they have sent them on a wild goose chase.

If they are lying on their letters then clearly they will have breached the OFTs DCG or Consumer Protection Regs

You need to click back on the link that says MY WORLD OF PLASTIC and it takes you back to the blogs main page

Hi The OFTs DCG guidance only says it can be unfair if they have come out of nowhere after 6 plus years to pursue a debt without any prior warning. Thats not the same as a creditor trying to contact someone but them ignoring them. They have been careful to say that they accept the debt still exists and it could be something of a gray area is the creditor is saying they did send letters but the debtor is saying they never recieved any for whatever reason. DCA are certainly views by the Government and Regulators as legitimate business - of course they are - its some of their practices that are questionable.