Theft as defined by the act is — (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. I am not 100% sure that a refund to reduce the debt good legally be classed as permanently depriving as this would reduce the total amount payable so when it comes time to repay the debt, you will in turn receive the benefit of this refund. (putting aside part and reduced settlements) If the refund to a DCA could be classed as theft, then what could the claim for a refund for charges that weren't originally paid be classed as ? Surely claiming a refund for something you have not paid could be classed as obtaining funds under false pretenses.... It may help if I explain the way I think about it. I see it as exactly the same as going into a shop and asking for a refund for a TV you didn't buy in the first place Boy I will win some fans for the above.

The Bank / DCA could actually argue that Tifo has not suffered a loss as the refund has been used to reduce an outstanding debt. The only actual loss would be loss of control of use of the funds. The funds themselves have not been lost, they have just been used for something that Tifo does not agree with

Thanks Dougal, I am not sure if the Fraud Act would really apply to Tifo's circumstances. By his own admission he did not originally pay the charges. So he is not suffering a loss by the refund being made to a DCA. Section 5 of the Fraud Act defines a loss as: (4) “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has. In real terms, Tifo has not actually suffered a monetry loss. If he had paid the charges and then the refund was made to the DCA, I could understand that he has suffered a loss as defined by the Fraud Act. However, as the refund is for something he has not paid, no actual loss has really occured. You can't really lose something you never had.

I am being really dense on this one. I don't get it.. I have read the act and section 3. I don't get what information has not been disclosed

sorry didn't read all the posts

I freely admit that I deleted my posts on the other site as it became obvious that you are not interested unless someone was to say that you can keep the refund and have the debt reduced. How you can compare by posts to a DCA is beyond me and I am frankly disappointed that you have attempted to twist my posts. I am not an expert. I have never claimed to be. However, in relation to Woolwich, I do have knowledge that I thought may of been of benefit to you. If this is how you react when someone attempts to help, people will think twice in future

Ok lets break this down, what "favours" are you actually looking for ? You asked a question, After I had received a refund why hasn't the debt been reduced. I answered the question What exactly is the problem ???? With respect, have you actually taken the time to visit the Debt section of this site? I highly recommend it.. If you honestly feel the mention of CCJ’s, Charging Orders and Statutory Demands is intended to scare members you are very much sadly mistaken. A quick visit to the Debt section of this site will clearly show you that these things are happening and that members need to be aware of them. Furthermore these specific topics are discussed on this site on a daily basis. Here is a petition set up on the Downing Street Website about this topic. I suggest in addition to visiting the debt section you also sign up to this petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/chargingorders/#detail Here is a list of the threads about Statutory Demands http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=1462406 Here are some about CCJ’s http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=1462411 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=1462414 Here are some about Charging Orders http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=1462417 All of the above threads can be found in the Debt section of this site. Could you also please clarify why you feel my posts are in anyway similar to a letter from a DCA ?

Buy a whistle lol Next time they call, just put the receive down without hanging up and go and make a cuppa or watch t.v let them waste their money calling you. Just don't let them get to you, they are playing games. However, I would report them to the OFT and Trading Standards

I would keep copies of all letters, yours and theirs... You can use theirs as potential ammo if things turn nasty later on.. AIC are a strange bunch

lol, you don't need the CFC you are totally in control of this one.. Good for you

Cabot confuse the word duty with liability. Usually a liability of a contract cannot be assigned, however a duty is not a liability. If you were to claim a refund of charges from the DCA, imposed by the Orignal Creditor, this would be a liability. However, the requirement under the CCA for them to provide you with a copy of credit agreement is a Duty. Not sure if I explained that to well... Anyway, in relation to Cabot, always email Ken Maynard, don't waste your money on stamps... Cabot like so many DCA's try to write their own set of rules and pick and chose which legislation applies to them. Until they provide you with a copy of the agreement, there is nothing they can do. Even if they do provide you with a copy, if you can, can you post a copy on here so we can all take a look at it. The Golden Rule with Cabot is let them do the work....

Pt is right, there are numerous instances of Barclaycard not bothering to sign the agreement

If you are able to narrow the date to a specific date, you could ask to review the CCTV. Only problem is that I think some branches only have 31 tapes which they reuse each month. I think the best thing to do is make a complaint, they will be able to review the branch entries and see if anything is a miss (if you can trust them, that is) In relation to them taking two months to tell you, sadly Barclays have a strange policy of not telling a customer that they are in arrears until the arrears is in excess of one monthly payment. Which is just daft..

Out of respect to your request, I will not post again on this thread. However due to the content of your previous post, I feel that I have the right to respond. Firstly, I am sorry if you found my “theories” in anyway patronising, this was never my intention. One of the purposes of an open discussion forum is to discuss and debate topics. I am also sorry if you feel my posts were not sympathetic enough. I didn’t realise you wanted sympathy, I wrongly assumed you wanted answers to your questions. Secondly, you asked a question and using my knowledge and experience (as you have today looked at my CAG profile, you know that I actually do have a great deal of experience of dealing with various DCA’s and I have also reclaimed unfair bank charges) to answer the question you had asked. It is most unfortunate that on this occasion the answer does not suit you and for that I can only apologise again. In relation to comparing my posts to a DCA, (considering my experiences with DCA's) I am deeply offended by what you imply. If you were to read my posts again, I am sure you will agree that they were made to educate rather then to cause fear, as they say information is power. Surely you would prefer that people tell you the truth rather then make up fiction just to make you feel better. You say that this discussion might have been better on ‘another avenue’ and I have brought fear to this platform... All I can say in response to those comments is, what other avenue / platform would you suggest. Sometimes the truth is scarey and hard to accept. I have to ask, why ask a question if you don’t want to an answer. I started to post on this thread to try and use my knowledge and experience to help you and answer any questions you may have. Sadly because I am unable to tell you the sky is yellow when in fact it is blue you have asked me not to post on your thread again. I will respect your wishes on the understanding that I reserve the right to respond to any comments made in relation to my charactor. If you note the little green boxes under my name, you will see that I do help other people and I am pleased to say they appreciate my help. Excuse me for trying to help you. I guess you just can’t help some people...... Enjoy your large brandy !!!!!

If you own your own home you have more to potentially lose then someone that doesn't. If you don't repay the debt the DCA or if the debt is returned to Barclays, could apply to the court and place a charging order on your house Yes it is a possibility I was not suggesting you accept any of their offer of settlement, I was suggesting that you could consider making your own reduced offer... In what way ? I disagree, you have a refund of your charges, which you could use to reduce the debt. If you did not get a refund of charges, you would have to pay the whole £5k out of your pocket instead of the £2k and using the refund.. So you save £3,000 hardly worth nothing

Without ducking the issue, it is down to you if you pay a DCA or not.. Personally, going by the way they treat people I wouldn't.... However, you have to take a lot of factors into account. 1) The Amount of the Debt 2) Can it be disputed 3) Do you own your own home (possible charging order) 4) Possible CCJ You could make a offer a partial settlement in relation to the debt say 10p in the pound in full and final settlement. So if you owe £5,000 offer them £500, they can only say yes or no, at least that way, the debt will be fully repaid you can spend the rest of the money on anything you like and when your second claim pays out you are totally free to do whatever you want

No Some of the people that have reclaimed charges, don't also also a debt to the Original Creditor or a DCA. The whole point of reclaiming charges, is to get a refund of the charges that you should not have paid. If you still owe £5,000 (£3,000) of which is charges, you are asking for a refund of something you did not pay in the first place. However, you do have a number of options, you can spend the refund and dispute the debt, use the refund to reach a reduced settlement of pay the full refund towards the debt and reduce it by the amount of the refund In relation to Woolwich, until May/ June last year as matter of routine they would send customers cheques in relation to charge refund requests. However, before the announcment of the test case they stopped this and started to recall accounts from DCA's applying the refund to the debt then refunding the customer any surplus amount

Exactly, sorry Hughes I think I have only confused the basic issue with my previous posts, thanks Michael

If you owed £5,000 this means that you have not actually paid that amount (I am not making a judgement as I have been in the same situation) So by paying you £3,000 as a refund, they are refunding you something that you did not pay in the first place. As you did not pay £3,000 of the £5,000 of the debt it can't be reduced by another payment to you.

I am not going to get in to a debate about DCA's and Unfair Charges. I am wanted to answer your question in relation to why the DCA are still chasing the original amount. The easiest way to explain it is this: Debt £5,000 (Charges £2,000) Woolwich / Barclays pay you £2,000 and reduce the debt by £2,000 You would by default have had the benefit of £4,000 instead of the £2,000. If Woolwich / Barclays were to pay you and reduce the outstanding debt you would have had to bites of the same apple so to speak

It may not be the Branch that resulted in the fraud on both accounts. It could well be a local petrol station or something of the like and your card details were skimmed. The Mexico transactions may show as cash withdrawals but this may not be via an ATM. They could be cash over the counter withdrawals. This happened to me last year (Nationwide not Barclays) my account was emptied via a number of cash withdrawals in Sri Lanka, I spotted them coming out as ear marked funds so before the cash was physically taken from my account I visited a branch in person and informed them of what was happening.. Didn't really do me much lukc though. I managed to get them to refund my money within 3 days. The way I did it was to find out our nationwide do there email address i.e [email protected] (barclays do them the same way. I then went on their website, made a note of all the names of the directors and googled Nationwide email and got a few other senior email addresses and I emailed them all my complaint. I outlined that it was impossible for me to be out of the country and indicated that if they did not refund me I would go to the press. It is important to note that Barclays will ignore any press threats unless you quote a specific reporter and the paper they work with. By emailing the Directors, it will force Barclays Exec Team to deal with your complaint and if you name a reporter and paper they will also get pressure from their press relations department. Give it ago, you have nothing to lose.

If he had a Woolwich for Kids account, this should have changed into a current account when he turned 16. Bearing in mind he is now 23, I would have thought that the account would have been made dormant a while ago. If he had any money in the account he needs to contact their dormancy team to get his money back.

Thanks for the kind offer, sadly I am more then familiar with the calculation of APR and flat rates.

Within the terms and conditions for the credit card there should be a section about their right of set off. It would depend if they state RBS of the RBS Group. If they state RBS Group then in theory as NatWest is part of the RBS Group they can. However, from my understanding NatWest still operates as an independant entity from RBS