Urgent - read this if you CCA

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

I have received a PM from someone who recently successfully CCA'd a debt away. This morning, however they got a solicitors letter informing them that their case had been reopened because they had discussed the alleged debt on CAG:shock:

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU DO NOT POST ANYTHING THAT WILL REVEAL WHO YOU ARE IF YOU ARE DISCUSSING THIS SORT OF MATTER. THIS PERSON GAVE THE GAME AWAY BY POSTING THE EXACT CASH FIGURE CLAIMED BY THE DCA. DRIVE SAFELY!!!!

 

It's good to know that the DCA's can hear us laughing at them though:-).

[dannyboy660]

Case re-opened as in they have a valid CCA in which to proceed to court, or just more pish and wind??

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

Case re-opened as in they have a valid CCA in which to proceed to court, or just more pish and wind??

 

Hopefully the latter - but if you admit the debt in writing you are giving yourself a very unnecessary disadvantage in county court land. It might in certain circumstances (ie an anti debtor judge) negate the absence of an agreement.

[Percival Wigglesbottom]

A lot of people deliberately post wrong information thou, as in the debt amount or other slightly not-correct information , so as not to be identified. What happens if you quote a figure that is the actual amount not you but somebody else owes ? I can see them able to do this if you scan a letter from them and leave your account details and name on it and then admit to the debt.

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

A lot of people deliberately post wrong information thou, as in the debt amount or other slightly not-correct information , so as not to be identified. What happens if you quote a figure that is the actual amount not you but somebody else owes ? I can see them able to do this if you scan a letter from them and leave your account details and name on it and then admit to the debt.

 

That would be an excellent defence were it not for the unfortunate coincidence in timing. IMO you should always cover your tracks completely as a matter of course.

[dannyboy660]

Hopefully the latter - but if you admit the debt in writing you are giving yourself a very unnecessary disadvantage in county court land. It might in certain circumstances (ie an anti debtor judge) negate the absence of an agreement.

 

Posting an amount on CAG under an assumed name would not amount to an admission. Anyone could have done it, your aggrieved ex partner, your naughty nephew, or even the DCA themselves....(now there's a thought).... there are plenty of them here!!!!!

 

(Un)Fortunately, without that CCA they are wasting everybodies time, including their own.

 

It is quite an interesting indication of just how worried they are getting. They don't seem to like the fact that the CCA route is becoming quite common. DCA's are presented with real difficulty over the electronic transfer issue, and approaching people demanding money without the correct legal instruments in place. A little knowledge in the public domain has become a stumbling block for them. It could become a serious problem for them until the full implementation of CCA'06.

 

Many of their own 'phone staff are working under the illusion the automatic dialling systems are there purely to speed things up etc....it is also a mechanism to hide behind if they are demanding money on an unenforceable account......

 

...am I saying too much???

[PriorityOne]

I have received a PM from someone who recently successfully CCA'd a debt away. This morning, however they got a solicitors letter informing them that their case had been reopened because they had discused the debt on CAG:shock:

 

Scare tactic.... IMO. As said, without a CCA... they can re-open the "case" as wide as they like... there is still nothing to re-enforce. Besides, when did we start signing confidentiality Agreements ?

 

[Curlyben]

Also even when CCA06 IS fully implemented it isn't retrospective, so a CCA request is still a valid approach.

[Percival Wigglesbottom]

Just say it was bravado, you didnt really owe it but wanted to make the DCA's look bad in a public forum.

[dannyboy660]

Also even when CCA06 IS fully implemented it isn't retrospective, so a CCA request is still a valid approach.

 

Thanks CB. I am not fully up to speed on CCA'06, as I have proven elsewhere, but I believe it does make allowances for electronic agreements, transfers etc. I should take the time to have a proper look, but I'm getting too old and tired to fight much anymore, and I forget my wassisname more often than not..........

[Curlyben]

That it does, but there was an amendment to CCA74 back in 1983 that also did this.

 

As to the transfer of ownership, a Deed of Assignment is still required to prove this absolutely.

[sequenci]

That it does, but there was an amendment to CCA74 back in 1983 that also did this.

 

The electronic communications order was in 2004, however, there have been lots of tweaks and additions over the years.

[Curlyben]

Thanks for that sequenci, getting confused with my dates, been a looong day.

[clearmydebts]

subscribing

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

It would still hold no water.

Unless that solicitor can 100% say it was that person that posted then you can't confirm an identity.

The amount does not prove who you are as it could actually be wrong.

Your name and address does though.

I consider this to be a scare tactic by whoever it was chasing the money, and to further frighten us by letting it be known they read on here.

I don't see what difference posting your letters has against DCA's anyway. People are coming here for help, people give them help.

So what if a DCA had a suspicion? It's not illegal to ask for help.

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

I think many would agree, that the company should be named and shamed. The poster should unless they wish remain anonamous.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

the company should be named and shamed.

 

I agree!!

[livelylad]

What you have to remember is the CAG is a data controller and therefore is subject to the DPA.

[Curlyben]

livelylad, are you sure about that as WE are not members at all merely users of this site and as such no rights or duties are implied to CAG.

[PriorityOne]

What you have to remember is the CAG is a data controller and therefore is subject to the Data Protection Act.

 

The burden of proof still lies with whoever is trying to bring the action though.... so anyone who tries to bring action against a "username", will end up with egg on their face. Solicitors are backing off in the absence of CCAs as it is, without trying to go to court with rubbish about supposed identities.

[renegotiation]

I get a bit depressed some times. Coming on here does actually give me a good hard laugh now and then. Yep, this is another world beater. The essence of this thread is tantamount to taking User Names to court! LOL Pull the other one. I DON'T THINK SO.

 

'It's good to know that the DCA's can hear us laughing at them though:-).'

 

Yes I couldn't agree more! MUHAHAHAHA. Come get me you ****s.

[paulwlton]

Desperation.

 

Paul

[NitrousOxide]

Yes it does reek of desperation.

Even if someone hacked my account you'd still not find out my identity as it's not kept on the CAG website.

We are merely usernames on here, so they'd have to prove 100% in court that it was that person who posted. Nigh on impossible(A DCA would not get permission to IP trace).

If I was the person who POET says PM'd him I would simply write back saying it wasn't me (even if it was). Prove it!

Again I say the DCA should be named. People need to be prepared and possibly a good response could be typed up. I believe it would be beneficial to the guy in question as well.

[dannyboy660]

If I was the person who POET says PM'd him I would simply write back saying it wasn't me (even if it was). Prove it!

Again I say the DCA should be named. People need to be prepared and possibly a good response could be typed up. I believe it would be beneficial to the guy in question as well.

 

Rather than write back, it would do far less harm doing nothing at all!!

 

The DCA in question to be named by the 'username' being targeted would add a little weight to their attempts to identify..... if that's what the intention is....so naming should only be done through a third party, totally unconnected.

 

On the other hand, I think it's just a fuss about nothing and a pointless bit of shadow chasing. There's nothing to be lost/gained by anybody, as although many see this as the 'Holy Grail' of websites, it is just a discussion forum, like many others. Any illegal activity going on here would have been jumped on long ago by the Mods or a higher authority. Everyone knows it's here!!!

 

It's just a fine example of why it's better not to give too much personal info. There's no harm at all throwing in the occasional red herring, or dollop of bollshut (I live opposite Apex House, and work with G.I. ) as you have absolutely no idea who you may be communicating with...you just have to trust your instincts and follow the advice of those who know what they are doing....if you are giving advice keep it legal and sensible....and have a bit of fun with the trolls and DCA staff who can't resist showing themselves from time to time.

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

The advice given so far has got to be right - anonymous internet chatroom chatter is never going to carry any weight in court. It's just highly annoying for the person concerned to have this bloody minded DCA start harassing them all over again when they thought they had got rid of them. It DOES pay to be careful - don't give them unnecessary extra ammo!!