That's a good call, thanks. I'll try a waiting game SAR is due in 3 weeks and court date will be 4 or 5 weeks so it'll be tight.

Does this make sense or would it be seen as inflammatory? The applicant believes that if a liability does indeed exist that the claimant has failed to act in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in that he failed to issue default notice, termination notice, assignment notices etc. and has instead used the court to circumvent his responsibilities in that regard.

Have spoken with my Local Court and I am allowed to send in an amended statement which they will marry with my N244, Can anyone see anything I should add or remove from my post 45 please? (I've taken on board Andy's reply post 49). I want to get this away for Monday if possible.

Silly me, I notice I've been CTRL C ing from old posts instead of reading the new templates. A cautionary note for others methinks!

Ah I see, then it's so old that it's already gone from CRA and i think I'm right in saying they can't default it again? Also the CCJ issue has now been transferred to my local CC

Okay thanks for that, nevertheless that's what they will be reading as it's been posted already. I'm NEVER going to pay something that they can't show me an agreement for and their "normal requests for payment" will be consigned to the Local Authority's recycling agents with the other spam mail. I take it they can now sell it on or register it with CRAs too or is that still not allowed?

Okay as expected they defaulted my CCA request and I have today sent this: ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE Account ref: Dear Sirs You have defaulted on my request for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement pertaining to the above agreement, pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. And the account is now legally in dispute. Whilst the default continues you are unable to assign the account to any other party. Furthermore if the default remains for 30 days you commit an offence under the ACT. You will therefore cease ALL collection activity until you have rectified the default. You are reminded that under CPUTR 2008 it is an offence for you to mislead me into believing that you possess evidence of a contract knowing the same to be untrue. I will not hesitate to forward details of your conduct to the relevant authorities and/or seek such relief as I am entitled in the Civil Courts without further notification to you. You should be aware that the only proof acceptable to me must pass the legal definition of “STRICT PROOF”. I am in receipt of your letter dated 13.09.12 and must advise you that I cannot accede to your request for ID documentation. Our views differ of course in that you address me as E but my name is E+ the former being an informal address and that you claim I owe a debt to you from ** and I claim that I have never had an account with them, you ask me to confirm abcdef as a former address and I claim that it has never been an address of mine. As stated in my original request I am not prepared to adjust the date for compliance to take account of further correspondence and therefore your date of 22 September as a deadline for provision of ID is invalid. The date prescribed for your compliance remains the 10th October 2012. I request a copy of your complaints procedure as there are issues which I should wish addressed. I should like to get through the formalities with as little difficulty as possible in order that we might reach a resolution, and I should like to point out that as you make a claim against me using this address in the name E and I am responding accordingly; you must have satisfied yourself as to my bona-fides. In short either you claim that the data relates to me at this address and places me at a liability to you or you do not believe that it relates to me at this address in which case you would have no evidence to base your claim upon. There should, therefore be no basis for you to request ID, the legislation does not require it other than that you comply with the regulations. I could not in any event supply ID in the name “E” as it is an informal address and my documentation reflects the name “E+” and my current address differs from the one you claim belongs to the account as you already know. Your correspondence to date has, in my opinion been unprofessional in that you have written to me as a number of different departments rather than giving me a contact name within a defined department. If this tactic is designed to intimidate me or make me feel that you are unaware of the overall scope of my original letter, take heed that it is not working. It is your responsibility to ensure that my enquiries are disseminated to the relevant department(s). I have no intention in wasting further postage costs on this matter and suggest that you confine your efforts to either complying with my legal requests or informing me that you have been erroneous in your tracing of Mr E in which case you must destroy all data relating to me and informing me in writing of such destruction in compliance of the Data Protection Act 1998. Yours sincerely

Is it ummmmmmmm Big-Ears? perhaps.

I find it irresistible to have a little tease, I think I'll send them this: account ref: @@@@@ Dear sir/madam, I am in receipt of your letter dated *.*.12 and must advise you that I cannot accede to your request for ID documentation. Our views differ of course in that you address me as XXX but my name is YYY the former being an informal address, and that you claim I owe a debt to you from ??? and I claim that I have never had an account with them, you ask me to confirm &&&& as a former address and I claim that it has never been an address of mine. As stated in my original request I am not prepared to adjust the date for compliance to take account of further correspondence and therefore your date of ** September as a deadline for provision of ID is invalid. I have no interest in threatening complaints to the relevant bodies in the event of your non-compliance of my statutory requests but I would like a copy of your complaints procedure as there are issues which I should wish addressed. I should like to get through the formalities with as little difficulty as possible in order that we might reach a resolution, and I should like to point out that as you make a claim against me using this address in the name XXX and I am responding accordingly; you must have satisfied yourself as to my bona-fides. In short either you claim that the data relates to me at this address and places me at a liability to you or; you do not believe that it relates to me at this address in which case you would have no evidence to base your claim upon. There are therefore no reasonable grounds for you to request ID, the legislation does not require it other than that you comply with the regulations. I could not in any event supply ID in the name “XXX” as it is an informal address and my documentation reflects the name “YYY” and my current address differs from the one you claim belongs to the account as you already know.

Thanks Brigadier, thought as much but doesn't hurt to confirm the meaning of a term used so frequently.

Good idea LFI, since Brig mentioned it I think he's probably on the right track it's more likely to be the SAR request than the CCA. Does 12 working days + 2 mean they can be Saturdays or other non-working (bank) days x 2 or Xmas days? probably quite obvious but it just seems odd 12 + 2 working days rather than a straight forward 14 days.

I have no idea, although I did request SAR at the same time (seperate letter) perhaps today's letter refers to that request and not the CCA request. Either way, should I respond? The letter was from collection department, I'm sure I have read that there is no requirement to supply an ID in the ACT.

https://www.noddle.co.uk/ you need to register and give card details to validate but no money is taken.

How unexpected! CCA request was sent on 01.09 and delivered on 03.09 (10 working days so far). Today i get a letter: "Further to your recent correspondence and in order to process your communication further, we would request that you provide the following information by 22 sep 12 to assist us in resolving this matter." "a photocopy of driving license, identity card, passport would assist us to progress the account accordingly" & "your assistance would be greatly appreciated. please note that this is not a demand but a request" Above the sweet little template box is the account info, account purchased from, amount etc. Firstly one wonders, are they not sort of admitting they are not sure that they are sending personal data to the person to whom it relates? Or, might they as well ask: would you 'please send us some real information to assist us in fabricating an instrument that gives us title to this debt from you?'. They have banked my £1.00 cheque but seem to be suggesting that in order to fulfill their legal obligation to me they need further proof that I am the person that they say I am, and I say I am not, and they kindly extend their 12 + 2 working days. Now should i even bother to respond with a little sarcasm or just let them default before sending them the default letter. I assume that as they have previously informed me that they have asked the OC for the CCA stuff and that I have informed them that I am NOT a past resident of the address they inquired about. They must have the agreement etc. discounted my reply to their address inquiry and with absolute certainly that they have the right of the matter decide to bugger about with this nonsense ID crap. The final paragraphs of my CCA request went: For the avoidance of doubt the OFT Guidelines state: “You don't have to give any documentation to the debt collector. They must provide information to you to prove you owe the money.” And as you have contacted me at the above address you are obliged to have satisfied yourself as to my identity using all possible means BEFORE demanding money from me and furnishing me with personal details regarding a debt. Having regard for the above please do not waste my time by asking me to provide you with anything further to validate my name and/or address as I will not adjust the date for compliance accordingly.

Oic, thanks that explains my confusion (to me at least lol). I'll worry about it no more.

Thanks Andy, still unsure what the part 8 procedure means.

oh seems not otherwise they couldn't have a default judgement.

Is the CBBC method of issuing a claim an "alternative method" with CPR part 8? If it is then should the claimant have issued under part 8 if he knew not whether there would be "substantial dispute of fact"? ie. because there had been no correspondence/dialogue I'm probably reading it all wrong or my understanding of the part 8 thingy's application doesn't apply. Hmm I'm 55 now and it takes weeks to absorb one little bitty of this legal mumbo-jumbo, perhaps I ought not think of re-training as a lawyer after all.

But not if you've already used it as I suggested earlier!

Use the envelope as a pooper-scooper and return it.

That's clear enough, thanks Ganymede. Just trying to cover all the angles. I think the DCA are helping me to see what is what by referring to an address that I have not lived at which leaves me to believe that they have mis-traced.

Doubt they could plead that it hadn't been served when there has been a default judgement which was (hopefully) set-aside as I would argue that the POC are different to those on record already.

Thanks, that sounds like a plan and, nemo tenere prodere seipsum in response to: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horus Sapit

I get that entirely Brig, thanks. I'm pressing for the CCA so that Caggers can see that the DCAs will try to avoid the issue of taking on both the rights AND responsibilities of the OC once assigned. The creditor post assignement is the DCA and the creditor has a duty to provide, no? It's the issue of the DCA trying to pass the responsibility of confirming (or not) that I lived at a given address (5 addresses before the present one). Following a serious house fire we were placed in temporary homeless accommodation for 3 months before renting the property (for 2 years) at which I was CCJd. When the old lady that owned that house died her family wished to sell the property and we were again placed in temporary homeless accommodation, again for 3 months before getting local authority housing. Now the DCA want me to confirm if I previously resided at **address**, presumably if I tell them I did not it puts their entire trace in doubt supporting my argument that targeted my name and receiving no response/confirmation assumed that I was their debtor and issued their threat-agrams accordingly. If the court asks me then of course I have to tell the truth, but when the DCA ask me (and I have no confirmed business with them) am I obliged to co-operate? I am minded to tell them that they have no right to demand personal information from me. PS please don't take the view that I am arguing for the sake of argument or disrespecting you in any way as such is not my intent.

Hmm, received 2 letters regarding my CCA and SAR requests sent for the non CCJ matter. In respect of the CCA (Capital One) they say they "have requested a copy of the agreement for the above account and this will be forwarded to you when received. If they own the debt they should have it surely? The second letter: Please be advised that we have received your request for further information on this account in order to process your request further we require you to confirm if you have previously resided at the below address: Address given here. Their "our reference:" are different on the 2 letters so I don't know if the address seeking letter is for the SAR or not. Am I obliged to give them this information before they comply with the timetables or are they simply trying to get me to fill in the blanks of their tracing? I do not deny that I had the cap one but know it to be SB (defaulted early 20** ). If they have contacted me regarding an account from a previous address using my new address surely they should not require my confirmation that they have not disclosed personal information to the correct individual; otherwise they have breached DCA no? Just to clarify for those who might think I seek to avoid a legitimate liability for the Default CCJ, this is NOT the case otherwise I would have left well alone and ridden out the 2 remaining years on the register. Should I respond to the address enquiry or just count down the 12+2 and 40 day deadlines? BTW, the address they are inquiring about is different again to the one on which they served CCj