NO!!!!! Don't offer them a PENNY in settlement, otherwise you are acknowledging that the debt is yours!!!!! If you suspect that someone has committed fraud, then it is a matter for the police!!!!

Cheeky EDIT Would a smack in the mouth increase the chances of getting you to leave my house? (Seahorse does not condone the use of violence in persuading unwelcome visitors to leave, unless such action is warranted in light of the DCA's representative acting like a total [EDIT] idiot.) (Seahorse would like to point out that the above comments are for demonstration purposes only. No DCA's were harmed in the writing of this post.)

I had to think about that one

All of the above?

I'm off on my holidays to Sunny Sc unthorpe. Because S****horpe is a lovely place. Oh, look. The profano-bot has rejected a perfectly acceptable real word because it contains a hidden meaning. As Sarah says, it has starred the word "collectors" out of the middle of the whole word, just like it did in ODCs post.

Just had an email in, so I decided to do some thinking out loud. My comments in red.

It is an unfortunate fact that to be able to force Cabot to comply with my s10 notice under the DPA, I have to specify damages apparently. Really, all I want to do is get them to behave and I have no interest in money, so I think I'll just be leaving damages up to the discretion of the court. But yes, we will be going to court, if the ICO and CSA can't persuade them to play nice.

Arrange a doorstep visit to them? Send Big Al and his mates?

In other words, p1ss off and bother somebody else about this. It's how I read it, anyway.

You'll be needing one of these soon...

You COULD just ignore it, but I think the next thing that wil happen is, they'l keep phoning you until you are about demented. As you will not need to worry about an entry in your credit record (It would take longer to sort out than there is left to run in any case), I suggest this... Write to say.. Thank you for your letter, ref blah, blah. Unfortunately, I do not recollect the matter to which you refer, and I must insist that you prove to my complete satisfaction that you are entitled to take any action in regard to this matter. For the avoidance of doubt, I do NOT acknowledge any debt. Unless you supply me with proof as intimated above, I shall not even contemplate replying to any further communication. Please note that you will NOT telephone me or visit me at my home or any other place. Any communication that you might contemplate will be in WRITING only. Failure on your part to comply with this request will result in a robust reaction on my part. Please note that this may include litigation of my own against both Ruthbridge and Cabot. Something along those lines anyway. Don't feel guilty about this. If the original creditor had been bothered enough about it, they've had nearly 6 years to get their act together. It's not your fault they dumped it off on Cabot after all this time.

That's the ticket.

Jason Evans strikes again. And yet again, in relation to a debt that is getting close to being time barred, if it isn't already. The extra amount will be interest etc. QUite how they arrive at this insane figure is anyone's guess, but forget that for the moment. Now, do you live in Scotland, by any chance? If so, Tough Sh1t, Jason. It's now statute barred. If you live in England, well the limit is 6 years, and I guess Ruthbridge have been called in to try to collect before the limit there kicks in. It's highly unlikely an agent will call. But JUST IN CASE, you have the right to tell him to Feck Off. In more polite terms, right enough. But if he won't go away (and you should be yelling at him through the letter box) tell him you wish him to depart, he has 10 seconds, otherwise you will call the police. Ruthbridge have been called in because of their use of nasty, illegal, bullying, cowardly tactics to try to get a payment that Cabot would otherwise struggle to collect. Just remember that fact, and don't worry. Any more info you can give us?

Whatever you do, NEVER talk to them. I suspect some of them have been getting additional training in being sneaky on the phone. Remember, their bonus is probably dependant on YOU agreeing to an unrealistic payment, even if in reality they can't lawfully ask for anything.

Sounds like the Template-O-Matic has been in action again, and the tea boy has been let loose with his colouring-in kit. I wouldn't bother trying to argue with them. They'll never admit any different. Just tell them that unless they write to tell you they are stopping all collection action, you'll report them to everybody in the phone book. Well, TS, OFT, ICO, CSA, FSA anyway.

I've heard that rumour too.

As faras I am concerned, I AM disputing my bank's right to charge what they want. Doesn't matter if there is a test case ongoing as far as I'm concerned. Bank charges me £xx. I dispute that the overdraft that is created by this action is lawful. It is up to them to convince me they are correct. Until they do so, I continue to dispute the defaulted (and it has nearly got to that stage) amount they wish me to repay. They say I owe £xx. I say no, I don't. Ergo, there is a dispute. As far as I'm concerned anyway, it's a case going through the ENGLISH courts, so what has that to do with me, as I am governed by SCOTTISH law?

It seems to be quite typical Theo. Cabot never seem to admit they are in the wrong. So eventually it reaches the stage that you can probably forget about them, as they know they won't win in court. Or if their actions are hurting you, such as by their reporting a default where none exists, it seems you need to exhaust their complaints procedure, followed by reporting them where approriate. I'm at that stage, and hoping to avoid having to take them to court. But I suspect that is what it will take. Welcome to the Club, by the way. Nice to have you on board.

You are correct Theo. Your debt is way past being statute barred. If Cabot insist on harrassing you, just collect all the letters and keep them in a safe place. Assuming your last payment was in 2000, they can't touch you. Of course, if they DO get Ruthbridge involved, expect the phone calls to get threatening and abusive, as well as any letters they write. Again, keep them as evidence, use everyone's complaints procedure, and if they fail to stop, report to all and sundry. If that happens, let us know, and we'll help with letters etc. Even Cabot wouldn't be stupid enough to take a statute barred debt as far as court. I hope. But they can make life miserable all the same. Reporting them seems to be the only answer to their "business model."

Nicely done... let's see if they try to harrass you over the domain name. I've just seen your holding page. Looks like you use the same hosting company as me.

Which would very likely be granted if an agreement turns up. There is nothing to preclude a judge from allowing an action to be taken under those circumstances, unless the debt was unenforcable, such as by virtue of the fact that the "agreement" was really just a precontractual application form.

So what has happened here? Has Monument sold a debt on to Cabot? In which case, they have no right to be recording a default. As they have quite rightly implied, it is now Cabot's right to continue the reporting of the default; 1 default per account. Monument are, as usual, talking bollix, and have admitted in writing that they are in essence, contravening the Data Protection Act. One can only surmise as to their reasons for doing so. Does anyone have any suggestion, other than they are being vindictive? Write back and tell them that you intend to complain to the Information Commissioners Office, and the FOS. I would personally have the complaints ready to send off as soon as you get another negative reply. And I would tend to give them 7 days to comply as well. It's a simple matter that doesn't take a lot to understand, so they shouldn't need long to think about it.

Yes, they ARE barred from taking any further action whilst they are in default of the CCA request. However, they are perfectly entitled to seek enforcement through the courts should an agreement turn up. Personally, I would prefer to turn up and defend, as once the court finds against them, they will have shot themselves in the foot. By applying to have their action struck out, there is the risk of them coming back for another "square go" at a later date.

Yup, I've started a thread about it somewhere.