I wish you the best of luck, I honestly do

When (more like it) they do call, please say hello from me and wish them my best...

I doubt anyone would dispute the way in which dealing with DCA's and some creditors make you feel. After all most of the people in this forum, including myself have either gone through it or are going through it at the moment. I know you have previously quoted claim amounts totalling in excess of £10,000, I don't think the FOS would agree to award anywhere near this figure. All I would say, without any disrespect is that you need to be realistic in relation to the amount of damages that the FOS would award. Especially when you consider that a Soldier that lost his hand was only awarded (admittedly not by the FOS) £16k. I am sure you will agree the pain and suffering you have endured fails in comparison. I am not in any way belittling, what you have gone through, as previous said I amongst have been through similar difficulties. I just feel that for your expectations to be met they need to be realistic, otherwise you will end up feeling disappointed and hard done by.

For substantial damages, you would better off going straight to Court. As the FOS state in their technical notes Where the degree of inconvenience and/or distress is sufficient to warrant a financial award, the level of the award is likely to be modest. Most awards are for less than £300 and in only a small number of exceptional cases do awards exceed £1,000. Awards involving pain and suffering are likely to be higher than those involving distress or inconvenience.

But Tifo, why is it your money. You freely admit that you did not pay them. In fact you could argue that by buying your account the DCA has in effect paid the Bank your charges, thus they should get the refund as they paid them. The argument can be twisted in so many ways, but I personally feel it stops at the fact that you can't have a refund for something you did not pay. Would it really be fair for you to receive a payment in these circumstances ? I appreciate that you could use some of the payment to offer the DCA a reduced settlement. However, unless you are willing to go to court and take your chances (as previously posted one of the cases quoted is irrelevant). It will be down to a Judge to decide what should happen. Going to Court is like placing a bet, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose...

You know far me on this to be honest JonCris, I am just thinking out loud and working through ideas. But isn't that right given when you sign the original agreement agreeing that the Bank has the right to assign it's rights under the agreement and that the right to assign is one of those rights that has been assigned ?

When you sign the agreement (I will use Citi as an example) you agreed that they could assign their rights under the agreement. One of those rights, is the right to assign. Is there anything to prevent the right to assign from being assigned ? You could argue that the DCA cannot assign the account back as they can't prove ownership of the account. If the DCA can't prove they are the owner then the OC must still be the owner

There is an entire section within one of Sales Agreements (Deed of Assignment) Repurchased and Recalled Accounts 25. The Seller will notify the Buyer’s Servicer of accounts it wishes to recall on an ad-hoc basis. This notification should provide the minimal level of detail agreed operationally. Accounts notified by the 1st of each Month will be included in the Buyer’s Servicer’s monthly submission. 26. The Buyer’s Servicer will obtain reasonable evidence that an account is eligible for repurchase, and make this available to the Seller on demand. 27. The Buyer’s Servicer will submit a monthly list of accounts for repurchase / recall on the date of each months fresh purchase (usually between 25th and 28th). The Seller will review this list and agree with the Buyer’s Servicer within 5 working days the final list of accounts to be repurchased / recalled. 28. The Seller will forward reimbursement to the Buyer’s Servicer for the cost, without deduction or withholding , of each months agreed list of recalled and repurchased accounts to arrive no later than the 25th of that month

I just can't my mind around it, how can the FOS stating that you should not be refunded something you admit you have not paid not be common sense ? Sorry Tifo for me, it is like getting on a bus, taking a ride for free and then demand that the bus company pay you the amount of the fare, as you get off the bus I think the same basic principles apply

Ok this is the first bit, sorry I am a slow typist 4.2 Seller s Call Right In the even that the Seller, acting reasonably and exercising good faith in reviewing the totality of the circumstances, determines in relation to any particular Account that the Buyer’s ownership of such account is likely to lend adverse publicity to the Seller, the Seller shall have the right to repurchase such Account at the relative price (in terms of percentage of the Face Amount) paid by the Buyer there fore in respect of the Face Amount then outstanding on the Account. Any such re-assignment by the Buyer shall be without recourse and without warranty. For the avoidance of doubt, the Buyer shall retain all sums received by the Buyer in relation to any Account to be re-assigned. As I type it I will add more

I am on dodgey ground on this, so I am only thinking out loud (trying to cover ones backside) In the t&c's they usualy state something along the lines of they may any any time assign or transfer their rights under the agreement. Is the right to assign a right under the agreement ? If so does not the right to assign also be assigned to a DCA ?

Isn't a letter to the debtor to notify them of the assignment only requried to change the assignment from equitable to absolute. If the debt is returned to the original creditor as you say it would start the process again and whilst the account is back with the OC they can credit any refund against the outstanding debt. I am going to post some details of the agreement that relates speciify to one of the op's accounts which may further explain my previous posts. I would respectfully ask that people bear with me as I have to type this information first

Sorry for any confusion, I did not intend to infer that the account was not reassigned to the OC, or that a bank could take any action at all without the account being reassigned to them. What I intended to say was that the process of the account being returned / recalled was documented within the Sales Agreement (Deed of Assignment). This process is the actual reassignment of the account back to the OC. Once the account is returned to the OC by the DCA or recalled by the OC (reassigned) they can and do credit any refund to that debt. This is taken from a Cabot Sales Agreement (Deed of Asignment) Repuchased and Recalled Accounts 25. The Seller will notify the Buyer’s Servicer of accounts it wishes to recall on an ad-hoc basis. This notifcation should provide the minimum level of detail agreed operationally.

Not really practical and the results would be worthless as everyone who had their complaints rejected would give bad feedback and those that had their complaints upheld would more then likely give good feedback. All a survey would show is that people don't like having their complaints rejected and I am sure you will agree, we don't need a survey to find that out. I am not making any judgements in relation to your specific complaint. The point that I am trying to make is that people should not be put off making complaints to the FOS. Yes they do make wrong decisions, but the same could be said about any company or organisation. It would be impossible for them to get it right 100% of the time.

Sorry, it was not my intention to speak out of turn, I thought it may be beneficial to respond to the points that you raised. Some people imply that there are mysterious and secretive goings on at the Financial Ombudsman Service. At best this is naive, they receive information from both parties and then made a recommendation (as they are only human, can be wrong). I have not seen any evidence to indicate that the FOS has a hidden agenda. Personally, I would not have thought that the number of court cases had a bearing on the creation of the FOS. Back in the 90's people were not as aware of their rights as consumers as they are now and were more likely to accept the word and findings of their Bank. If they didn't, to a certain degree it would be tough as they was little they could do. What are they made out to be ? very true and that is why I am speaking from experience. As previously stated, I have made a number of complaints to the FOS as a member of the general public and I have had complaints that I have investigated (4 years working in a complaints department for a high street bank) referred to the FOS. I can state as a matter of fact that despite peoples emotional feelings in relation to the FOS they are not bias towards Banks. Sometimes they side with the banks and sometimes they side with he consumer. As per the link I previously posted, they do explain how they work. There are a number of leaflets and guides that you can download. You can also use the search function on their site to look at different case studies explaining how the FOS deal with certain types of complaints. They usually also explain how they investigated the complaint and how they reached their findings. Further to the links I previously posted in relation to the Hunt review, they did receive submissions from consumers. A request for submissions was also published in the press. http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/3.pdf It is unfortunate that you missed your opportunity.

JC is right (the account becomes a hot spud and they don't want to burn their fingers), DCA's will return the account to OC, Especially in relation to refund of charges this now happens more often then not. In the sales agreements (deeds of assignement) the returning / recalling of accounts is covered in great detail (at least the ones I have seen) In most instances I think people will find that the Banks don't actually pay the DCA's (why would a bank pay a dca more then the dca paid for the debt). The bank simply recall the account and apply the refund. When charges were first being refunded, banks gave no consideration to the repayment of debts with DCA's and were more then willing to send a cheque to the customer. However, this changed a few months before the OFT case announcment and Banks started recalling the accounts back from DCA's instead. I know it is has been argued that they would have to provided relevant documentation. However, in reality they don't have to provide the consumer with anything to recall an account and apply the payment. As the only notification of assignement consumers usually receive is to alledgedly convert the equity assignment into a absolute assignment. They would only write and notify the comnsumer and notify them if after the application of the refund a debt still exists and they wanted to reserve their right to instigate proceeding via a absolute assignment or they wanted to then sell it onto another DCA to collect the remaining debt.

Not exactly 100% accurate. The FOS is not the FSA and are actually subject to the regulations and rules of the FSA in relation to the Ombudsman Service. The FOS do not make up the rules, they only follow them. When the FOS contact a bank about a complaint, they initially request the bank to resolve the complaint (refered to as a stage one letter). If this fails to resolve the complaint, they send the Bank a second letter (refered to as a stage two letter) In this letter teh FOS demand copies of all documentation (i.e terms and conditions, offers) that relate to the customers complaint and the Bank also provide details of what they have done to try and resolve the complaint. Again this is not entirely 100% accurate, it can be fair (admittedly not all the time, but what in life is). There is nothing to stop you providing the FOS with either a chronological breakdown or any skeleton arguments. As previously mention Banks provide the FOS with a chronological breakdown of how they have handled the complaint. I can't comment in relation to their appeal process, as I have not had to use it as each of my complaints have so far been upheld. The case fee Banks pay to the FOS are paramount to penalties for not resolving complaints. You have to bear in mind that this fee is payable even if the complaint is not upheld. How would you prefer for the FOS to be funded ? Would it be better for consumers to pay a fee, each time they wanted to make a complaint or for the FOS to be paid out of the public purse ? In all responses from the FOS they should both outline their understanding of your complaint, their thought process and why they have reached their decision Here you go. It is important to remember the FOS is a Financial Ombudsman, complaints in relation to the data protection act, should be made to the correct body, in this instance the ICO The FOS do not carry out their functions on behalf of the consumer and they are not there to protect the consumer. The FOS do not represent either party. The FOS is not a consumer champion and are not an industry watchdog. They are purely an OMBUDSMAN service just like any other omudsman. All the FOS actually do is suggest a resolution to your complaint. It is down to you if you accept it. The Hunt Review did not only allow submissions from Financial Institutions. As stated on the Hunt Review website, the below are submissions they have recieved. http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/24_block.pdf http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/3.pdf http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/54_grenet.pdf http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/11_A_Lakey.pdf http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/23_Reid_Brussels.pdf http://www.thehuntreview.co.uk/submissions/52_Adamsamuel.pdf You make it sound that the FOS are insane for not agreeing to refund you money that you have not paid. In relation to most of your threads, I personally totally agree with the decision reached by the FOS. Common sense if nothing else would dictate that if you have not paid something, you can't have it refunded. I think a lot of the frustration people have with the FOS is that they misunderstand the purpose and powers of the FOS. The below information, may shed some light on the situation. "The Financial Ombudsman Service was set up by law as an independent public body. Our job is to help settle individual disputes between businesses providing financial services and their customers - fairly, reasonably, quickly and informally. Established by Parliament, we are neither a consumer champion nor an industry trade-body. We are completely independent and deal with disputes fairly and impartially." our aims and values Legislation passed by Parliament - Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 PART XVI The Ombudsman Scheme The scheme 225 The scheme and the scheme operator (1) This Part provides for a scheme under which certain disputes may be resolved quickly and with minimum formality by an independent person. (2) The scheme is to be administered by a body corporate (“the scheme operator”). (3) The scheme is to be operated under a name chosen by the scheme operator but is referred to in this Act as “the ombudsman scheme”. (4) Schedule 17 makes provision in connection with the ombudsman scheme and the scheme operator. 226 Compulsory jurisdiction (1) A complaint which relates to an act or omission of a person (“the respondent”) in carrying on an activity to which compulsory jurisdiction rules apply is to be dealt with under the ombudsman scheme if the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are satisfied. (2) The conditions are that— (a) the complainant is eligible and wishes to have the complaint dealt with under the scheme; (b) the respondent was an authorised person at the time of the act or omission to which the complaint relates; and © the act or omission to which the complaint relates occurred at a time when compulsory jurisdiction rules were in force in relation to the activity in question. (3) “Compulsory jurisdiction rules” means rules— (a) made by the Authority for the purposes of this section; and (b) specifying the activities to which they apply. (4) Only activities which are regulated activities, or which could be made regulated activities by an order under section 22, may be specified. (5) Activities may be specified by reference to specified categories (however described). (6) A complainant is eligible, in relation to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ombudsman scheme, if he falls within a class of person specified in the rules as eligible. (7) The rules— (a) may include provision for persons other than individuals to be eligible; but (b) may not provide for authorised persons to be eligible except in specified circumstances or in relation to complaints of a specified kind. (8) The jurisdiction of the scheme which results from this section is referred to in this Act as the “compulsory jurisdiction”. Schedule 17 of this legislation contains some more info This is what the FSA Handbook has to say about the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service This is how the FSA define the Financial Ombudsman Service: Financial Ombudsman Service - the scheme provided under Part XVI of the Act (The Ombudsman Scheme) under which certain disputes may be resolved quickly and with minimum formality by an independent person. The Financial Ombudsman Service, also state on their website: It’s our job to help settle individual disputes between businesses providing financial services and their customers. We are not a regulator ("watchdog") or a trade body or a consumer champion. Our role is to settle disputes, without taking sides. So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing. I have also attached to this post a copy of the memorandom of association for the FOS. Just because a few people have had bad experiences with the FOS, I would ask people not to right off making complaints to the FOS, however at the same time you have to be realistic in relation to your expectations. *Disclaimer. I do not work for the FOS. However, I have dealt with them both professionally and personally memorandum_of_association.pdf

I think that this debate has previously been done to death. However, there aren't actually as many DCA's as people might think. A lot of them are actually the within the same group of companies and they pass the debt between each other. The Sub forum could be for the Parent Company with a listing underneath of the related companies. In a similar way in which the Banks are listed i.e Barclays / Woolwich. Equidebt is a very good example of a company using multiple names. However the only way to find out more about these companies is to seperate them and for people that are involved with these companies to investigate them, as was clearly evidenced by the Cabot Sub forums. Before anyone posts a comment stating that all DCA act the same, I would respectfully request that you don't as the same argument can and will beapplied to Banks and charges.

Your a darkhorse tomterm, I have been on here for a while now and this is the first I have heard of your site. Good for you. A lot of good information on there, next time I get a ticket, I know where to go

In relation to Caveat emptor I was refering to the literal translation "buyer beware" in relation to the payment of deposits rather then it's actual legal meaning. I do apologise for any misunderstanding JobCris

I do feel given the circumstances the dealer was not right to release the car. If you later had an accident you may have held them legally responsible. I also feel that the dealer has a good argument to retain the deposit. Admitedly they could have handled the situation better. As previously posted, a number of dealers would have saved themselves money (sales departments have to pay service departments like any normal customer) and let the car go, thus not reducing the profit from the sale. Just out of interest how was the deposit paid ? Debit or Credit Card ? If you paid by Credit Card, you could request your Credit Card company to refund your deposit. I am surprised that JonCris did not either ask this qestion or suggest this as a / former Solicitor I am sure he is fully aware of Section 75 of the CCA. To recommend the commencement of litigation which could take in excess of 12 months and risk a possible counter claim, when it may not be required is poor advice.

That is what I have previously said, but what do I know. I only worked in the industry

Sorry OP for taking over your thread, I was just trying to offer some advice from someone that used to work in the trade and has seen similar situations, instead of emotional responses that are based on observation rather then real life situations I feel given the circumstance, you could try and reach a compromise with the dealer i.e a partial refund or a larger discount on another car. My old Sales Manager always used to resolve problems by offering stupid discounts on other cars. Despite some of the posts on this thread, I think it is a good sign that this dealer performed the work before you took delivery. It would appear they had your best interests. they could have easily kept quiet, let you take the car and a few months down the line the brakes could have failed. I think in this particular situation the dealer is dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

Now this in an interesting read http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=217545&EL=3143810 By refusing to complete the sale you have agreed, you are technically in breach of contract and so forfeit your deposit.

Sorry JonCris forgot you know everything about everything....