As well as writing to Wescot I have also written the following to Halifax directly: Dear Sir/Madam, I am extremely disappointed to note that Halifax have passed the above alleged debt to Wescot Credit Services Ltd after seemingly and arbitrarily ignoring my very recent correspondence that the documents that were sent to me (dated 20 Dec 2007) did not fully comply with a Consumer Credit Act 1974 request. It is also very disturbing that Halifax, after being informed on previous occasions and who are well aware of the fact that the (FOS) Financial Ombudsman Service (Ref: *******) is currently investigating my complaint in this regard, (confirmation of which is detailed in your correspondence of the 20 Dec 2007), are attempting, without due care and process, to bypass Office of Fair Trading Guidelines in respect to a disputed account and the passing of a debt to a third party while said dispute is ongoing. I have today updated my most recent correspondence between myself and Halifax with the FOS and it is of great distress that Halifax seem to be ignoring the detail of my recent complaint and are also apparently attempting to circumnavigate and avoid the FOS investigation by using Wescot Credit Services Ltd to obtain unlawful payment whilst an account is in reasonable dispute and under investigation by the relevant authorities. For your information i have informed Wescot Credit Services Ltd that the above account is in lawful dispute and that documents supplied to me are non compliant to a Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s77-79) request and have suggested that Wescot obtain legal advice and in the meantime follow OFT guidance in this matter. If Halifax have anything further to add or can supply me with a properly executed agreement containing all the prescribed terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and OFT Guidelines I would be delighted to received it at the earliest opportunity but in the meantime i shall await the FOS adjudication in this regard and suggest that Halifax review it’s procedures thereby avoid committing any further infringements concerning the above Acts/Guidance. Yours sincerely, me

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/236-lloyds-tsb-contact-details.html

To get a copy of your Credit Agreement you send a request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. (Letter in the templates but I'll paste it here also.) You must include a postal order or cheque (i prefer cheque then you can see when it was cashed) for £1 and write on the back of the cheque "CCA payment only" with your capital one account number also. Don't forget to make a note of the cheque number itself and to post it by recorded delivery. They have 12 working days to comply. After that they are in default. Another 30 days after that (total 42) they have committed a criminal offence. As for the calls I'm afraid the only way i sorted that one out with MBNA (8 calls a day from them alone) was by changing the number. I too sent to administration of justice act letter etc etc and even when i had a reply from them the calls from india still didn't stop. "We need to be able to contact you in a timely manner" was their response. Account Number: **** **** **** **** Dear Sir/Madam, With reference to the above account I would be grateful also if you would send me a copy of this credit agreement and a full breakdown of the account including any interest or charges applied. I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 [sections 77-79], I am entitled to receive a copy of any credit agreement and a statement of account on request. I enclose a payment of £1 which represents the fee payable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I understand a copy of any credit agreement along with a statement of account should be supplied within 12 working days. I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with the request for a copy of the agreement and statement of account under these sections of the Act. I look forward to receiving your reply, your sincerely, Paladine

My reply from Experian: http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/DSCF6891.jpg http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/DSCF6892.jpg http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/DSCF6893.jpg http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/DSCF6894.jpg http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/DSCF6895.jpg

Also, this video is very interesting.... Maxed Out

My reply to Barclays will be a SAR in the morning

yes folks... the usual reply will go off: account in dispute etc and i'll update the FOS complaint as well. Not so good news though... Barclays have finally got around to sending me another agreement. No letter enclosed or anything but it is the same one that i had from them before they passed it to a DCA last year barclays1.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting barclays2.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Well, i expected Halifax to write back and tell me how wrong i was about the validity of their 'agreement' but instead they have simply passed the account on to another DCA yet again!

Cheers!

Oh that looks very interesing. Thanks for the extra info Patrickq1. I'll add that to my arsenal! Just finished the reply to Triton but may amend somewhat before sending tonite or tomorrow! Dear Sir/Madam, In regard to your recent correspondence dated 02 Jan 2008. It is disappointing you have chosen to ignore the detail of my previous correspondence and i must reiterate that any documentation relating to any Consumer Credit act 1974 (s77-79) that has been received does not comply with the regulations under said Act and therefore is not currently enforceable. I note in your letter to me of the 2 January 2008 that you intend to send a debt recovery agent to call on me to discuss and agree proposals for repayment of the alleged debt. There is only an implied license under English Common Law for certain people to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions, etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Please therefore take note that, I revoke license under English Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so without my permission, you will then be liable to damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be conspiring in a trespass if you sent someone to visit me nevertheless. I also note from Information obtained from Companies House that Triton Credit Services Limited are registering their Accounts as Dormant. Therefore I require Proof of your company’s Registration and a Certified Copy of your Licence to Trade within 10 Days of receipt of this letter. If you fail to supply me with satisfactory information under the above request i reserve the right to contact the Information Commissioners Office, Companies House, Trading Standards, the Financial Services Authority and/or the Office of Fair Trading to make a formal complaint in this regard and to ascertain the credibility of Triton Credit Services limited. In the meantime I shall await the findings of the ongoing Financial Ombudsman Service’s Investigation and strongly suggest that Triton Credit Service Limited do the same. Yours sincerely, Me

Yes Humbleman.. totally predictable procedure regarding the detail of communication. You can almost anticipate what the content of the letters are before you open the envelope! lol Patrickq1.. That's something i'll be asking for: proof of their company registration and a certificated copy of their license to trade!

Thanks very much Steven.. I was thinking about adding the 'revoking access' bit to a letter but couldn't for the life of me remember or find the wording! Cheers! I'll get that off to them later today!!

I just looked up Company info on the .gov site and this is what they have about Triton. I'm just wondering why it has 'active status' yet 'dormant' accounts and if i can use this information to my advantage? If a company is dormant then, I think i have read elsewhere here, are they not supposed to be trading/in business? Name & Registered Office: TRITON CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED WATERHOUSE SQUARE 138-142 HOLBORN LONDON EC1N 2TH Company No. 03275895 Status: Active Date of Incorporation: 08/11/1996 Country of Origin: United Kingdom Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC(03)): 7499 - Non-trading company Accounting Reference Date: 31/12 Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2006 (DORMANT) Next Accounts Due: 31/10/2008 Last Return Made Up To: 01/10/2007 Next Return Due: 29/10/2008 Last Members List: 01/10/2007

From Mint (Triton). These people just don't learn (or ever read what you send them!). Can you do a Police report via email i wonder?

Yep, Christmas.. 2012! lol

Well, good timing. From the FOS today: re. Crap1 and Mint.. very sorry we haven't allocated your complaint yet, will do so as soon as we can.

Last nite the following leaflet fell out of the cheap tv listings guide. I thought it was one of those pointless scratch cards to start with until i actually read it to find out it was part of an anti-benefit fraud message from the DWP. Talk about police state though as they say they have cameras in baseball caps etc etc but the main problem i have with it is the suggestion that they, in some way, have the power to look into your bank account at any time?! "DWP is able to data match anything from your bank statement, to see what money is coming in and out." Is that really true?? I thought they couldn't do that without a court order yet they imply they can do it at the click of a mouse whenever they feel like it? Not that it matters to me personally as i don't have anything in there but it's the principle! http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/front.jpg http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/back.jpg

Having said that, today ReallyMadWoman has had a good result from the FOS which has given me hope that they will get around to me eventually too! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/102011-blair-oliver-scott-bank-7.html#post1317534

That's great rmw! I'm so pleased for you! And that's the sort of news that i needed to hear after becoming a little disheartened at the FOS's lack of speed lately! I shall keep plugging away like you though and won't give up. Brilliant result!

ugh i know humbleman.. they aren't to bothered about getting a move on all right! Been sitting here twiddling my thumbs so... Have sent a complaint letter to Experian (and will do the same tomorrow for other CRAs) about the lack of agreements and the processing of my data. I have also sent S10 Notices to all creditors

From the FOS re Halifax: Not allocated you complaint yet.. will write again in four weeks with an update etc...

ah right i see, thanks steven... i'll amend the letter as appropriate then, cheers!

Been a little lax with Link Financial of late. Did send a short reply to the statements they sent a couple of months back but was in the mood for writing so penned this one off after borrowing bits from all the place so can hardly call it my own work: Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for the documentation recently received the contents of which have been noted. Unfortunately my request remains outstanding as all you have sent are statements relating to the above accounts, which do not contain the prescribed terms as laid down within Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) or Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s77-99). Without production of the said agreement/s I am unable to asses if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you, nor does it give me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. Previous requests for this documentation have been only produced pre-contractual application information and therefore have not met with the above statutory criteria. I still require you to send me a true copy any original credit agreement/s that you allege exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law. As per my previous correspondence I have made a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and they are currently investigating this matter therefore these alleged accounts are in lawful dispute and i do not acknowledge any debt to Link Financial or MBNA respectively. To clarify s61(1) states: “(1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless— (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and © The document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.” In addition the prescribed terms referred to in section 60 CCA1974 are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following— 1.Number of repayments; 2.Amount of repayments; 3.Frequency and timing of repayments; 4.Dates of repayments; 5.The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable Therefore based upon the Consumer Credit Act 1974 these alleged debts as they stand are unenforceable and should this proceed to litigation, a court is precluded from making an enforcement order under section 127(3) unless a true copy of the signed agreement is produced. I will reiterate that any documentation received relating to my Consumer Credit Act request/s have not been fulfilled within these and other criteria and a true copy of any executed agreement/s between MBNA and myself has not, to date, been produced. Furthermore, I hereby serve Link Financial with Notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 in connection with the processing of data which may result in causing unwarranted damage or distress to me. I, 'name' of 'address' hereby formally request you to cease processing/not to process the personal data which you hold on me as its use will result in substantial damage or distress to me which would be unwarranted. I believe that the processing of this personal data would result in unwarranted damage or distress because of the extra financial hardship this would cause and due to the inability of Link Financial or MBNA respectively to produce lawfully enforceable documentation relating to the above account numbers would thereby be an unlawful action without a properly executed agreement. Please cease processing within the next 28 days or I may pursue this matter further through the courts under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act. If you do not normally handle these requests for information, please pass this letter to your organisation’s Data Protection Officer as soon as convenient. I trust this out lines the situation for you and in the meantime suggest you await the outcome of the current FOS investigation Yours sincerely, me

As i understood it the current charges are 'unlawful' but not 'illegal'. It's like everyone driving around with bald tyres and the police ignoring it as a court test case was about to start to find out whether it really is unsafe to drive like that or not. The police wouldn't ignore such offences but would enforce the law 'as it stands' and would never say "that's ok, we'll wait until the courts decide" but would judge the current situation as it applies today, in this case 'unlawful' until they were confirmed by the Courts as 'illegal'. If i am making sense (which isn't often) with a poor analogy.. :o

Morally i would say you are totally right AudreyG but personally i would suspect they would weedle out of it on some technicality. Just look at the way the FSA and OFT are letting unlawful charges to still be applied even though they are currently unlawful where the morally right thing would have been to stop these penalty charges until the test case is over with!