Too right! Can you believe their cheek?

Hello soulysurfer, I hope the replies you've received above have calmed you down and reassured that this letter really isn't anything to get so worried about (and certainly not scared). Others are advising you above as to how to respond, but just by looking a bit more closely at some of the language in that letter -- it shows that it's all bluff and bluster (but of course sneakily worded with the intended effect to worry and frighten, which it did.) Also, the barman down the local pub recommends today's special of Shepherd's Pie It may be 30C and sunny in Clacton-on-Sea tomorrow, but also, it may not. They may as well stop there. There are so many ifs and maybes and mays in there. If Dipsy nicks Tinky-Winky's handbag, and if the unlikely event happened of your case ever going to court where the judge could see that you could afford 50p per month, our client would get 50p, and bugger-all else in big red letters. Oh, they're talking about :love:happiness now after all those nasty but ultimately empty threats? I completely understand how you must have been worried, but please don't worry about this -- see it for the toilet paper that it is. As citizen B said: it skates the boundaries of breaching the OFT guidelines on debt collection. It's good that you're here getting advice on what to do, and it is best not to totally ignore the letter without acting on it in some way -- but really, please don't worry -- this letter really is a lot of guff from a company that specialises in threatening and intimidating people. That's their business and they're experts at it -- until you see through their garbage ..! Take care, All the best, F.E.

You're not stupid! Just there are a lot of abbreviations to get used to in all this -- you'll get used to them and know what they mean over time, but just ask away if you're unsure! OC is "Original Creditor" -- who you took the loan/credit card out with in the first place (before the nasty Debt Collection Agencies got involved..!)

PHEW! If you'd left "my account" in, that could have reset the Statue Barred clock as direct acknowledgement of the debt!!! Glad I got the comment in after all and that it was helpful -- even with my limited knowledge! I am learning though, as we all are ... Nice one!

(may already be in, I mean)

With the CCA request, with regard to "correctly worded", does it contain these vital points (or words to the same effect)? -- "I do not acknowledge this debt" -- if you make any reference to it in the letter, refer to "the above account" or "the alleged account", NOT "my account" "The £1 payment is the statutory fee for the CCA request and is not to be used for any other purpose" -- make it a postal order, not a cheque -- send the letter recorded delivery/signed for (of course) Sorry if this is telling granny how to suck eggs, but ... these may all indeed be in the CCA request, but it's worth checking!

Thanks Fred! I got a warm glow from reading that ! It's very early days yet but I'll continue to post about how I get on. I kept banging on about the morality thing as it comes up here just about every time CCA is mentioned (via the word wriggle). I see though you have a thread on that very topic from a few years ago so I'll have a read through that. I failed also to see morality in the case of one bank where I paid them £2000 but my debt with them WENT UP anyway despite paying all that hard earned money gained through scrimping to the bone. Anyhow, spilt milk, and enough of that nonsense going forward!

Hello Fuzzel, Well done on trying to cover all angles and get yourself properly informed. I wonder whether it's actually helping you however to be told that you're worrying about nothing, and that you should ignore ignore before you yourself have fully appraised yourself of the reasons why you might be able to ignore them and not worry ... I saw your expression of this several times in your thread and I felt your frustration. One thing that I can't see mentioned in the thread is: what type of debt is (sorry, WAS) this? Credit card/Overdraft/Loan? I'm not in a position to advise, given that I've only recently started tackling my own situation. I would have thought that if it's a credit card or loan, there's no harm in sending CapQuest a correctly worded CCA request. HOWEVER, as you're either past or very close to the statute barred date, this is something you would not want to jeopardise, so I would wait for some more informed advice from others more knowledgeable than myself. One thing though that I think you should put well and truly to bed at this stage are any notions of offers of payment!!! Very best wishes -- I'm sure you'll get through this as you're going the right way around finding out the fine detail of your situation and your available options. F.E.

Thanks HH! My credit rating is shot to bits now anyway as I've received default notices from all but one of the creditors. On a side note, I think the mantra of Keep A Good Credit Rating At All Costs (fed through adverts for credit report agencies, "How's your credit rating" ads on ever other hotmail page, and things like the "Your Money" section in the Daily Mail, et. al) has contributed to people being in worse debt situations when they eventually do face up to them and start trying to tackle them. E.g. to keep paying and not miss a minimum payment, people get into a lot worse trouble than if they'd have thought a year previously "these minimum payments really are a struggle -- I'm going to have to get a reduction and look into paying debts". Rather than "Oh no! My credit rating will be crap if I stop paying! Better borrow off another card to meet the minimum payment on this one!" I admit thought that if you're moving house or need a mortgage, or change your mobile phone provider etc. then a duff credit rating will be a handicap. But I think I can handle six years or so without credit -- and even when those six years are up I don't think I'll be bothering with credit any more! Sorry, change that word "credit" for the proper word: "Debt"! "Debt card", "debt rating", "debt default swaps" "debt is the lifeblood of small business in the this country" (I've heard them "credit" for that last one a lot!). Sorry to have rattled on ...

Thanks Caro. I know it's not going to be all plain sailing, but even the simple fact of being able to redirect the cash paid pointlessly and uselessly into the DMP into a savings account/under the mattress to be available down the road to offer Full and Finals has got to be better than the farce of the past two years. If I'd done that a couple of years ago I would have £6000 cash which would have demolished a big chunk of my overall debt if offered via F&F. Regarding this thread in general, and the original posting, I'm still not clear at all however about the disparity of the moral stances between: stopping payment of a credit card debt on the basis of unenforceability (that is still outstanding and that you know you sometime must have applied for) = using paperwork to wriggle out of paying/morally bad . stopping payment of a credit card debt on the basis of it not appearing on a CRA report (even though you know that you have not yet paid it back in full and there is still money to be paid back on what you owe) = using paperwork to wriggle out of paying/morally not bad If you search for "wriggle" or "wriggling" on this forum, there are a lot of declarations of the former whenever CCA requests are mentioned.

Indeed. In nearly two years I've paid £6,000 into the DMP and according to creditors' statements, the total debt has gone down by £416. Complete *@#. "We" (see above)/aka CAG (presumably) might not agree with the concept (although how all however many thousand users of this forum can be of one mind and opinion, I can't quite fathom), but I am stopping paying this debt, so I suppose that makes me a wriggler*. After two years of playing by CCCS rules (and living as lavish a lifestyle as a Victorian street urchin), the whole parasitic financial "industry" can eff orf. "Industry". Ha! * I seem to remember a pleasant but equally impossible game for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K with the same name circa 1985.

I thought something like that might be the case ..! Reclaiming charges might be worth doing if a CCA is seen to be enforceable and they start realistic threats of litigation ... Have done! Still awaiting replies but very early yet. After having done a few months of research and learning from others' experiences I'm actually feeling quite excited and that weight has started to be lifted. **** the banks!

Thanks. Despite having read the "claim back charges" pages, I'm still not clear on what I could reclaim. All charges and interest from the date the DMP started? That in itself would be amazing. I'm thinking though of saying sod the lot of them and just stopping payment. Although if I could get a chunk of interest and charges back at this stage before the Statute Barred clock has been ticking very long, it might be nice. Although maybe it's more effort than it's worth and I should just concentrate on keeping track of the correspondence they start bombarding me with once they stop receiving any money ...

Many thanks PriorityOne! Yours is the first reply that has addressed the crux of my initial posting. The word "wriggle" seems to suggest slyness and wrongdoing, yet the morality and uprightness of one's obligation to pay or continue paying seems to magically disappear after six years. It is the moralistic-ness in the seeming distinction between the two that I have difficulty reconciling.

Thanks for the response, and I'm not sure who you exactly mean by "we", but do you agree with the concept of paying a DMP (with CCCS) where the creditors refuse to stop or reduce interest, and where they keep adding absurd interest making repayment of the debt impossible, despite genuine attempts and efforts and considerable financial hardship in doing so? I don't see what alternative I have. Keep paying a DMP (with two years' history of consistent regular monthly payment) where 93% goes on charges and interest that the creditors continue to refuse to stop charging?

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Just wondering whether it would be considered wriggling out of paying the debt if: 1. You send CCA requests and stop payment 2. Get CCA request replies back from creditors/DCAs 3. Keep writing back to the creditor or each new DCA that is assigned and claim unenforceability (3. In the meantime save or put a significant chunk aside of the money that you now have instead of paying each month into the bottomless pit of payment to creditors/DMP) 3a. For the unenforceable ones, keep doing the DCA letter CCA request ping-pong until the six years are up 3b. For the enforceable ones do the same as in 3a, but when they're really starting to threaten legal action for real (rather than empty threats), use the money saved to offer full and finals This is something I'm having to seriously consider myself now after having paid thousands into a DMP to see a minuscule 7% of it having gone towards paying the debt (while living like a particularly impoverished church mouse in the meantime). I find it difficult to muster a sense of moral obligation to repay the banks when 93% of what I've paid over two years has gone on interest and late payment charges. It may be a case of avoidance wriggling (=morally bad?) for six years, and then it ceases being avoidance wriggling once the debts become statute barred (=morally not bad?) ...

Hello, I'm just trying to work out the distinctions between what is and what is not considered wriggling out of paying credit card debts. I've read that sending CCA requests to creditors and stopping payment on the basis of unenforceability is considered using paperwork to wriggle out of paying a debt. Then I've read from the same sources that if you request a credit reference report and if a debt that you are paying is NOT listed on that report, then you should stop paying. I'm confused by the distinction between these two. If both of the above are for debts/credit cards that you KNOW you took out at some point in the past, why is the first considered using paperwork to wriggle out of paying (i.e. it's considered debt avoidance) whereas the second is not considered debt avoidance (despite it also using paperwork to wriggle out of paying a debt that you know you took out). Many thanks for any help anyone can give in explaining the moral distinctions here. F.E.

You too! Keep updating via CAG -- hope you get on better with the DMP than I did! All the best!

Hello again! Ones that stopped interest: Capital One, RBS, MBNA (eventually). Ones that didn't: Lloyds TSB, Halifax, Sainsbury's. It's because of the interest and charges of those latter three that I'm in no better a situation than I was two years ago, despite going through CCCS and despite doing a DMP. But even with the recent realisation of this ridiculous situation (I knew the monthly DMP payment was becoming a struggle a few months ago but didn't really have a clear idea of the figures until very recently), I'm actually feeling very positive now, knowing that I'm going to stop paying the DMP, and therefore stop paying the creditors until they come up with enforceable agreements -- and by the time they do, and then by the time they start threatening court action for real (that is rather than the might and maybe bluff and fluff), I'll have been able to save up money and put it aside for F&F, rather than chucking 93% of the money I paid through CCCS each month into the coffers of Lloyds, Halifax and Sainsbury's!

Hello SG! I'm a very new member of this forum myself, but please don't worry about being judged or lectured. As ims21 has said, you are trying to sort out your situation, as all of us are who by virtue of being here on this site have debt problems ourselves! It's human nature that we've all beaten ourselves up about the mess we're in, but that gets very boring and doesn't help one bit. I'm sure you'll hear from someone soon who has the right experience to advise you. All the best! Frog E

Hello Gericke I have been with CCCS for nearly two years. They were a great weight off my mind to begin with, but (nearly) two years down the line, and paying crippling amounts each month, I found that one of the debts has gone up by MORE than the £2000 I have paid that particular creditor in that time! CCCS do not look kindly on you having any life to speak of beyond eating basic food, travelling to work and back, paying your gas/elec/water/council tax and toothpaste etc. That last sentence is only mild exaggeration. They allow you a minimal clothing/shoe budget (for wear and tear), and I've heard people say they don't allow you to spend more than £1 on lunch/or tell you you have to take a packed lunch to work, for example. That in itself isn't such a bad thing if you're trying to save money, get out of debt and get back on your feet. However when you're looking at 15 years or so in a DMP paying amounts that make life a real struggle (forget holidays of any description for 15 years, no matter how hard you work) -- scraping by, buying the cheapest food, and then when a year or two on, you look at the amount you've paid into the DMP (about six grand in my case) and you see how little the debt has gone down by ... I have just worked it out right now, using the most up-to-date statements from creditors. Some aren't very recent as some creditors stopped sending any statements about six months ago (but still continue to send periodic threatening letters), but comparing my CCCS statement (which shows exactly how much I've paid into the DMP, and how much to each creditor) and the actual most recent statements from creditors, here's how it looks (rounded figures) Original total debt at start of DMP: £50,000 Amount paid into DMP with CCCS in about 20 months: £6,000 Amount by which my total debt balance has actually gone down: £416. Yep, that's right folks. I'd have been better off stopping payment altogether and flushing five thousand pounds down the toilet. Even then I'd be £500+ better off than I am now! Forgive my sarcastic and hopefully not too irredeemably bitter tone(!) This is the first time I've seen the actual numbers in black and white and it's making the colour drain from my cheeks! Some of the creditors did indeed stop interest and charges early on, but this was more than compensated for by the likes of Lloyds TSB and others who just continue to whack up interest and charges. The only advice I could give to you Gericke is: do not leave it a year or a year and a half before taking stock again. By all means take a few months to get yourself some breathing space. But I waited until just the past month or so to get my calculator out again, and while the CCCS payments were more manageable than keeping up minimum credit card payments before defaulting (impossible), they still left me with practically no spare money. And despite living a life of near poverty, and despite paying £6000, only 7% of that six grand actually has gone towards making a dent in the overall debt. I've only recently joined/started posting on CAG as I came on here to try to ask advice and look for alternatives to 14 years of this insanity. I've decided to take the plunge with looking into CCA [Consumer Credit Act] unenforceability. Even if some of the debts end up being enforceable (a likelihood), if I stop payments altogether while I push creditors to produce the paperwork (putting the accounts and payments on hold while they're looking for it) and save up another six grand (or say four grand and have two grand to make life a little more comfortable, like being able to treat myself to a pint of beer once a week), I could very well have been able to offer Full and Finals to some of the creditors and be rid of some of the debts and creditors already rather than chucking five and a half thousand pounds completely and utterly down the toilet that this DMP has been. Your situation may well be different (although your £400 p/m figure available income was similar to mine), but as mentioned above, please don't leave it a whole year before reassessing things and checking with creditor statements to see how much of an impact your DMP payments actually have or haven't made on your overall debt. I hope though you've started the New Year with a big chunk of the pressure of minimum payments lifted though now that the DMP will be starting to work! All the best! Frog E

Hello Flowerchild! Oh. So does this mean that any past acknowledgement of a debt is only relevant as far as resetting the Statute Barred clock? The fact that the debt exists in the first place must by extension mean it was at sometime acknowledged one way or the other. That was/is part of my confusion around the acknowledgement thing. For myself, the statute barred clock has not yet started as I have not yet stopped payments. I will be doing my homework and investigating options come the New Year. I have recently had a letter from Cabot, which I've CCA'd, they haven't provided a true copy for, and so I've told them it's in dispute and I've instructed the DMP administrator to stop payment to them. So that might be the first one that the clock starts ticking on. If in the new year, I make CCA requests and find any lacking (i.e. not providing true copies), could I from that point on "not acknowledge" the debt, or does the fact that historical payments have been made preclude that? As mentioned above, every single credit card account that has had any payments made to it would seemingly constitute some historical acknowledgement of the debt. (??) Or... [supposition alert] if a debt from an original creditor is sold on to a DCA, is that a point at which you could "not acknowledge" the debts? Oh dear. Tying myself in knots here! Just trying to get a bit of background knowledge and do some research before starting to try tackling stuff properly in the new year ..!

Hello, I'm a bit unclear about the whole thing around what it is to acknowledge or not acknowledge a debt. Say one [ahem] has been paying a monthly amount towards a credit card debt for years, does that by extension automatically mean acknowledgement of the debt? Likewise if someone requests repayment of charges and interest (for credit card debts), is that automatically seen as acknowledging the debt? I'm wondering what then happens when a CCA request is made and the creditor (or DCA) does not deliver a true copy of the agreement, and then the debtor the decides to discontinue monthly payments until a true copy of the CCA is received. Does the whole thing of acknowledging or not acknowledging a debt come into play here or not? Maybe different factors are involved with original creditors versus DCAs who have bought the debts? I suppose the question boils down to: What constitutes acknowledgement of a debt and what are the implications/consequences of that? Obviously I'm not very clear on this topic so any clarification would be welcome!

I went ahead and rang T-Mobile -- they've taken a bunch of information to give to their fraud team and apparently they'll be in touch by post. They told me to ignore the Cr*pQuest letter!

Hello! This week I've received a letter from CapQuest regarding a T-Mobile debt for under £50. They've said they've put a default on my credit file (which is in a mess with credit card companies anyway, but I've never had debt issues with any other type of company, if that makes any difference). Thing is, I have never ever had a T-Mobile (or One2One) phone/contract/SIM card. I've only ever once changed mobile networks, and that was from Orange to O2. I'm about to start going DIY with my DMP so I could do without this thing coming out of the blue as an annoying distraction (like those tiny flies that somehow love to hover between your eyes and your computer screen) . I've read about someone having this happen to them through identity fraud. There is a T-Mobile reference number on the letter so I'm tempted to phone T-Mobile customer services to begin with. I'd rather do that before contacting C*apQuest ... but any suggestions would be gratefully received. Many thanks!