My hubby has been contacted by a DCA for a debt he doesn't recognise. He did have a CC with the company mentioned by the DCA, but it was paid off a long time ago, and the account number given isn't his - he checked his old statements. In any case, his account was closed at least 7 years ago. I can knock out a prove it letter, and also mention it would be statue barred anyway, even if it was his, along with complaints to the ICO, OFT (via consumer direct or whoever it is) and FSO but as they were told the account wasn't his the first time they contacted him a few months ago, and have now written twice within 2 weeks, and phoned the house today, I wondered if there was an additional weapon. I seem to remember some time ago on this site that someone threatened a DCA with 'admin charges' if they continued to write to him with no just cause. I also seem to remember that the cagger, (or someone else) was told by a judge in a court case, that he couldn't claim what he attempted to do (for dealing with the DCA letters), but if he has used a different form of words, then he would have been allowed to. Does anyone have any more info? It was something like not being able to charge for admin, but being allowed to charge for something else, just a form of words really. In short, if a DCA continues to contact him, is there any way he can charge them for dealing with their correspondence? He isn't daunted by having to lodge court papers, or appear in court, as long as he has a legal basis for doing so.

at no point have I said you could or would be beaten, I simply made the point that trying to have an intelligent discussion with them was doomed to failure, as was trying to reason with them or expecting them to be reasonable. I'm sure you'll find a tactic that suits you, and as there appears to be a slight touchiness about this thread, I won't share the way I saw them off, because that would probably prompt criticisms and disagreements about it, so the best of luck to you.

May I suggest you take a step back, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, and type HUMOUR in the search box. Not everything on this site is meant to be taken literally, though many people will testify to the pointlessness of attempting to reason or explain something to a DCA, as clemma last post shows..

mind you, you should never try arguing with an idiot like a DCA, they'll simply drag you down to their level and beat you through their much greater experience.

Anyway, what I meant to say, was that my understanding, based on talks with a solicitor was that the court application stopped the clock for THAT applicant, but not for later, potential applications. So, although the clock has stopped for this creditor, and stays stopped as long as their claim is before the court, if they withdraw that claim or its struck out, any further claim from them is subject to the original timetable for being statue barred. Also, if the creditor should sell the debt, the buyer is also subject to the original timetable. Now, that was explained by a solcitor, but we know how clever some of them are, so some/all of it may not be quite true. If you think about it though, if it wasn't at least partly true, all any creditor would need to do to prevent a debt becoming statute barred, would be to start a claim every 6 years, and it wouldn't matter if the claim was struck out as long as it wasn't successfully defended. They needn't pursue it, as the clock is stopped as long as it is before the court. It would seem obvious that there should be some mechanism to prevent debts being kept live by repeated court applications designed/timed simply to prevent the application of the Limitations Act. Yes, we all know such actions might be construed abuse of process, but extending a debt liability period even for another 6 years would have a big impact - liable for 12 rather than 6 years. As I said, I don't know how much of what I said is true, but that was my meaning in my original post - the clock still ticked for any future purchaser of this debt and maybe even for the current owner if they are struck out and try again. Maybe donkey is smarter than the solicitor I spoke to? (it wouldn't be hard though would it, looking at some of them)

yes donkey, I became confused as I was reading 2 boards at once. Not all women can multi task to perfection. my apologies, just going to edit the other forum...

can you find out when the last acknowledgement was made, and hence when it becomes statute barred? if you are close to being SB, it may be best to let it be for the time being, and when the debt is SB, then apply for a strike out. that way, if they or anyone else is prompted to chasing you, its already to late.

don't be surprised if your next letter from them is addressed: The Dog c/o The Kennel etc it has been known

the ICO is, I have found by experience, quite useless It used to be said that they didn't have much power, well, now they do, but they won't use it. The length of time they take to process a complaint virtually guarantees that you will have either found a 'work around', have given in, or are simply not bothered any more when they come to address the complaint. If there is a fence anywhere they can sit on, they will, and if there is any possible way to interpret something in favour of the data processor rather than the consumer, they will. I made several complaint about SARs, some of them including a bank's refusal to process a SAR because my signature used in the SAR wasn't the same as the one they had on file. Despite pointing out extensive research and published documents on the form and purpose of a document, and pointing out the ICOs own publications dealing with the need for a signature and when a signature was acceptable, the ICO accepted that as the bank had a procedure for establishing identity, and that procedure requred matching signatures, then they 'were unlikely' to have breached the DPA. In short, a bank or data processor can put anything in its procedure for establishing identity, and you must comply with it, regardless of how difficult or unreasonable it is. At the same time the bank was refusing to accept my SAR, it was sending demanding letters to me, and passing my details to DCAs! Strange they weren't sure of my ID when I wanted to challenge the charges on my account, but they were sure enough of it to pass my details on to 3rd parties. The ICO didn't find this double standard in breach of the DPA either, because it was all in the bank's procedures! Of the 7 complaints I made to the ICO, the only one they upheld was against themselves - for not processing my complaint in the stated timescales. The action taken? They accepted responsibility, and that was the end of it. Lets hope the OPs SAR is process in the standard time, starting from when the SAR was first delivered. But if it isn't, don't expect the SAR to do anything about it. In short, the ICO is less than uesless and should be disbanded. Yes, there may be a few members who have got good results from them,but they are in the minority.

hollys dad makes a good point. I seem to remember there was talk last year (or maybe the year before) of reducing the time period in the Limitations Act (that which causes 'statute barred' status) and the Government crumbled under the protests from the finance industry. I also remember reading, maybe on here, that there is no particular reason why CRAs are allowed to keep records for 6 years.... it just seems that they decided they would, in line with other records, and the Office of Data Protection decided not to challenge it.... another example of a so called regulator not actually regulating. The DPA doesn't specify any particular period for data retention, only that data should not be kept for longer than necessary. It is the industry that decided it was 'necessary' to keep records of missed payments and defaults etc for 6 years.

my argument if you bothered to try to understand it, is that by not fulfilling their side of the agreement, both stated and implied, that they HAVE broken the agreement, and after some time can be considered that they will not fulfil it. THAT is what I have said already. But, I'll go away, and you can carry on being abusive to anyone who wants to consider all the options, and you can carry on making silly year 10 jokes

you are being a pain in the ass. and acting like a donkey. I was only responding to an invitation to discuss the implications. Nevertheless, you are just another example of why I don't post much on here, and why good members like pt have gone elsewhere. Moderator assistance sought.

My apologies, I didn't realise you were in charge of this thread. I'm just puzzled as to why you weren't at all bothered by making the thread irrelevant, or that this one was confusing the issue, or that was in danger of something else altogether. Or were they relevant to the court case in some way that I missed? In any case, I was responding to this (esp the bits that I have made bold: Some of us, rather than crowing about the Brandon case which would seem to represent merely a small victory for common sense, realise the need to look to the future, and look at how those affected by this decision might see their situation develop. Far from being irrelevant, it is the next, logical step, because whilst some members might enjoy making irrelevant, flippant comments such as those I quote, and metaphorically shooting their AKs into the air, you can be sure that if they haven't already started, the banks will soon be looking at their options, and their legal position in the light of this decision. It is after all, the next logical step for them to make, because they are not going to give up anything without a fight, not a single penny. So, if anyone wants to start a new thread, or continue with this one to discuss the implications of this decision, I'm sure I will be joined by others wishing to hear intelligent discussion and speculation.

I've already read them. yes Donkey B, they could reduce your available credit to zero each month, but that is not the same as terminating it. Everyone seems to be saying that illegal rescission argument is gone, but no one seems to know why or when? And although it may not appear relevant, it is, because now that the banks know that DNs must be accurate and comply with the statute, they may wish to act as though those accounts are live again so they can serve a correct DN or simply close via contractual clause. Knowing what the legal situation is to those accounts is important. As I said in an earlier post, are the banks now going to say that the accounts were never closed after all, so here's a statement with all the back interest? If they haven't kept to their side of the agreement, how could they say the accounts wern't terminated. and why haven't they broken the agreement? This appeal case only succeeded in establishing that DNs muct be compliant, and hasn't actually improved our situation at all, although we should be gratfeul that eventually, what common sense told us all, has been stated by a court

In which case what happens if they fail to operate the account as expected, eg, withdraw credit facilities, end any perks you may have had with the account? What happens if they sell the account to a non-lending DCA, so that all hope of credit has gone? They've broken the agreement, yes/no? if yes, what happens to the illegal rescission argument? If no, what is required for them to have broken the agreement? Are they then, on realising the DN was defective, going to terminate for contractual reasons? I note, that many termination clauses do not specify anything other than their right to end the agreement, ie no repayment clause. If they rely on this clause are they not ending the requirement to repay? if you mean they can't obtain judgement, then thats what the Brandon case established. But why bother with a DN? why not just end via the contractual clause?

who says they can? any clause allowing termination can be used to circumvent the CCA. As I said, why bother with DNs and the CCA, just use a contracual clause to end the agreement. You breach, they serve DN, you rectify. They then terminate via their contractual clause. Or, you breach, they terminate via their contractual clause, NOT because you breach, but simply because they don't want you as a customer any more. termination via contractual clause is much simpler than via DN - no prescribed wording, no prescribed dates etc. As for examples, Egg closed a hundred thousand or so accounts because it is believed they were not profitable enough - ie the holders were responsible and minimised their debt. I believe Amex also closed accounts - in my case when I reported to them that I was experiencing difficulties. I thought I was being responsbile. They simply closed the account, then when I didn't make a payment, defaulted me and reported me to the credit ref agency. The advice at the time given to those whose egg accounts were closed was that it was illegal rescission. So, what happened to the illegal rescission defence? What case destroyed it as a defence. Now that a court has held that a DN must comply with the legislated requirements (why it took the appeal court to decide that I don't know) we may see contractual closures from lenders rather via DNs as the banks have shown time and time again that they are unable to get them right. So, in addition to wondering what happened to te illegal resicsion argument, all those accounts that were ended after dodgy DNs - are they actually ended, or is it that the bank just haven't kept their end of the bargain by providing the expected facilities - credit card, credit, monthly statements, any perks that went with the account?

I seem to remember Egg ended thousands of agreements simply because they wanted to. The example i posed was why would a bank bother with Default Notices when they've screwed them up time after time? Why not simply rely on their contractual right to 'end at any time'? Simple. One letter, absolutley standard with no variation, no need to calculate dates etc, no specific wording. Much easier than bothering with precise legal words and formats, esp when they've got them wrong hundreds of times before. The question is not did they choose to do it before, (they have) but is it legal for them to do so.

nothing to do with this judgement because the appeal was about the lower court saying that the DN error was minor, but has this argument gone away, invalid? As the poster says above, what case disposed of the arugument? The lender can break the contract by their actions as well as by their words/letters. They may claim they have a contractual right to terminate, but I have always felt that that 'right' undermines the protection of the CCA - why would a bank bother writing default notices that they have got wrong time and time again, when they can simply point to clause x and say we're calling in the debt? You could be in a situation where you default, ae served with a correct DN, you rectify the default within time, and then they just end the account/agreement anyway pointing to clause x or y? Indeed Amex tried that argument, and the appeal court said that 'may be the case' but teh fact that they may be able to do that doesn't mean they can use that to ezcuse any shoddy piece of rubbish called issued as a DN

one thing I'm not sure about, if a bank sells a debt/account to someone/DCA after a dodgy DN was issued, will the DCA be in a position to serve a DN? ie, does the licence situation come into it? Do lenders have a different licence than DCAs? Can DCAs lend money? If not, then how can they issue a DN? And when they 'terminate' an account after a dodgy DN, is it actually terminated? I've got several dodgy DNs, all 'terminated'? Can the banks now say that they weren't actually terminated, and I now owe bank interest since the date of 'termination'?

thats why you should complain to as many as you can. start with the FOS as a continuation of your previous complaint, and ask for compensation for the distress this has obviously caused and will continue to cause for some time I notice their 'representative' hasn't been back to respond to my post. as a subscriber he will have an email with the contents of my post..... obviously has nothing to say, and I bet he hasn't answered all your queries either

well, I'm glad you cleared that up! As for the police, well, the police don't know this end of the law.. there is a case (or maybe two) that I read today from the Newsletter where the police assisted a Debt collector even though he had no court order.... I've read several times on this site about similar reactions from the police. Many people feel that if you have debt that yu don't repay, the lender is entitled to get the money back from you, literally anyway they can. The other day there was an article on the radio. I didnt hear it all, but it was about curbing debt collectors. Some pensioner phoned in to say he was being chased for someone elses debt, and if the debt collectors had more powers they'd be able to chase the right person (yes, he did say that). he completely missed the point that by chasing him the DCA was actng improperly and it was because of actions like that that people want more restrictions. I daresay the forthcoming documentary about bailiffs will show more shocking examples of fear and intimidation and law breaking... will it change anything? will it cause anyone to act?

If the OFT are so good at regulating these companies, why do we read every day on this site about the misery they cause? To be fair, Egg were partially correct, the guidelines are just that - a guideline to interpretation of the legislation.. It is the legislation that is the governing article. Guidelines are just that. They are a guide as to how to act to stay within the legislation. Breaking the guidelines in itself is not a breach of the legislation . I did in fact send the letter to the OFT and the above is what they said. Action may be taken against a lender for breaches of legislation, but not solely because of a breach of guidelines. The OFT has to be satisfied that a breach of the legislation has taken place. When I pointed to the OFT that Egg stated that they felt following the guidelines were 'optional', and asked the OFT what was the point of having guidelines that lenders felt could simpl;y be ignored, the OFT declined to answer. I'm not saying the OFT don't take action, but they are woefully slow at doing so, and very inefficent also. If they were anything else, this forum would be empty wouldn't it? Lets face it, lenders and their agents break these guidelines and indeed the legislation every day. This fact is well known, hence: Hansard 22 Apr 2009 : Column 338, Debt Collection (Consumer Credit Act) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090422/debtext/90422-0019.htm Now, maybe things have changed since 2009, in which case all posts on this thread must relate to cases before that date..... or maybe things haven't changed much at all. One big problem is that the Guidelines are just that, and it has to be proved that legislation has been broken. Take the case of relentless persuit by an creditor. You may complain that theoir frequent phone calls amount to harqssment. Thing is, you have to prove in court that harassment is taking place... now, I daresay that their will be some of you that claim that pointing out to a lender that their actions were harassment got them to stop. In my case, when they were phoning me on a phone I had given to my 14 YO son, NONE of the so called regulators said they had any power to stop them. It wasn't harassment because that was subjective, and only court had the power to decide if harassment was occurring. They weren't breaking teh Data Protection Act because they were calling on a number I had provided (several years ago) to a bank who had then passed it to a DCA and they weren't actually discussing anything with him, just asking to speak to me..... a get out for every claim. Now, feel free to tell me how rosy the garden is and how law abiding DCAs and teh rest of the industry is......and then say the forum is closing down because as the industry is so law abiding, it isn't needed any more. But count the new posts where guidelines and legislation are being breached, or the consumer is being treated unfairly, before you do.

All I can say about the new guidelines is that when I wrote to the MD of Egg pointing out the parts of the guidelines they had broken, I got a reply from some minion pointing out that the guidelines "had no statuary force and following them was optional" Sadly, he was right, and the inability to report such matters direct to the OFT is to our disadvantage. Yes, you can go to the overworked local Trading Standards, and if you get someone who actually knows the field, a report might get sent to the OFT, depending on how much time and money they have to do so. The OFT is quite simply a talking shop where they publish things to justify their existence, but do very little policing of their own rules. The problems in this field are legion, they have been mentioned in the Commons several times, but no progress on stamping out the bad practice and illegal activities has actually been made. How many DCAs actually lose their licence? Indeed there was the case a year or two ago where one DCA was allowed to practice fro about 9 months after their licence had expired whilst the OFT considered renewing the licence.... farcial

What about compensation for the illegal entry into her home, the attempted theft of her tumble dryer, and for the misery and distress and damage to her heath those actions caused her, and have exacerbated by your actions since? Personally, I would pursue a complaint with the FOS MPs Trading Standards and everyone else mentioned because I am sure this cannot be the only time they have behaved like this. They have shown by their actions that their word, that they gave to the FOS cannot be relied upon. I would not be surprised if the whole thing starts up in a few months time with another debt collector chasing the debt. This company needs at the very least tighter regulation of not putting out of business. Letting them off the hook will just allow them to do it again with others. Its interesting how you got nowhere with them until you came here - they know that we know our stuff and don't pansy around.

I must confess, after reading the judgement, I have no idea of the implications, other than that errors in service of a default notice are not minor and cannot be overlooked. I am guessing that after failing to serve a DN correctly, the lender cannot then go on to terminate the account. It doesn't seem to have been argued that a contractual right to terminate undermines the CCA and is incompatible with the protection to the consumer it seeks to give. It can be seen though., that AMEXs attitude was that errors in DNs don't matter because we can terminate any way we like. It would seem that Mr Brandon is still liable for the debt as their illegal termination doesn't seem to ended their right to collect it. I am puzzled though as to Amex counsel claiming that the agreement continued and it was only the card itself that was terminated.