A few final points and then I too am un-subscribing: Have you ever though of Politics, you avoid just about every direct question! Perhaps you can tell ME then what I should be spending my money on to cope with Chemotherapy, travelling daily for that, whilst at the same time bringing up my 22 month old granddaughter, because my daughter of 24 has just been killed, and whilst explaining this in detail with supporting evidence to every DCA that wanted to know, I was still called a lier HOW DO YOU OR YOUR BUDDIES KNOW I am lying, story too far fetched, NO JUST REAL LIFE!! I am not going to read any more of your trash.

1ST 8 LINES DONE Oh the MOORCROFT Stage is a-rollin' BACK over the plains With the DEFAULTS flappin' and the LAWLOR RACKING HIS BRAINS A beautiful sky, a wonderful day JUDGE CRACKED-away, JUDGE CRACKED-away, JUDGE CRACKED-away Oh the MOORCROFT Stage is a-headin' BACK over the hills AFTER THEY PAID THERE FINE AND EVEN PAID MY BILLS NICE LITTLE MAN SAID I DON'T HAVE TO PAY So HIP HIP HORRAY, HIP HIP HORRAY , HIP HIP HORRAY

Well said Hallibutt. Summed it all up really well. When they DCA's realise that they are the problem and not the solution, then the better off everyone will be. After all, nobody chooses to be in debt and struggling to live. When DCA's realise that and make a genuine effort to work with people, instead of lie to them and threaten them, they would find more people happy to pay what they can afford each month. I doubt the industry will change though. They are too set in their ways and are are always trying to justify it to anyone who will listen. The ones who will listen are few, and it's long overdue that this parasite industry that happily preys on people who have through no fault of their own, fallen on hard times, vanishes once and for all.

Jordan, I can understand the reasons for some of the things you have submitted to this thread. I do, however, think that you are sadly mistaken on many points. People have given some very relevant examples of situations where they find it difficult to maintain payments of the levels demanded by DCAs. Harrassed Senior's example was particularly pertinent and I do feel so bad for him/her in their current situation. Surely, when someone is suffering genuine hardship through no fault of their own, any reasonable organisation, DCA or not, would consider some kind of amicable agreement - even if only short-term? It benefits both parties in the long run as the debtor gets breathing space to be able to sort their finances out and the creditor eventually gets paid the sum that they assert is owed. People's examples of income/expenditure here seem to have passed you by - especially the idea of £12.50 per child per week - you may now be in the privileged position of not having to cover expenses for dependents, however, one day you may be. I hope that when that day comes, you'll remember this thread and have slightly more sympathy for what people have said. On the matter of income and expenditure, maybe you would be kind enough to give us your thoughts on the following: Male, mid-40s on Disability Allowance after suffering two life-threatening illnesses. After 18 months, he is desperate to return to work and therefore goes to his GP and requests to be signed as being fit for work. The GP is concerned about this, but relents. During this time, five DCAs are all demanding a minimum of £20 per month each - £100 out of a total income of £320. Nearly a third of income. Question: Could you afford to pay 1/3 of your income each month, before bills, living costs, etc? The Government, via the DWP states in all income correspondence with those on benefits: "You will receive £xx per week, which is the minimum amount that the government believes you need to live on." So, out of that minimum, DCAs would expect a person on benefits to pay out 1/3 of it to all creditors? That is the reason why, when many people are CCJ'd, that a magistrate or judge rules that a payment of between £1 and £5 per month is payable. It is a reasonable judgement and is quite simply unnafordable otherwise, no matter what your bosses may tell you. Not everyone is out to "fiddle the system" - most of us would love to be able to work/earn enough to be able to pay back any and all monies owed. However, with the tactics used by most DCAs, this does become impossible. Sometimes people get 20 - 30 phone calls a day from the same company. Their employers are phoned, their family and sometimes even their neighbours. Do you not think that should be classed as harassment? How about letters that purport to advise that court action is imminent, when the DCA has no legal right to assert such, nor to carry out that threat without a court ruling? Isn't that bending the truth at best? At worst, it's lying, bullying and scare-mongering. How about threats of illegal doorstep visits that contain the thinly veiled threat that bailiffs will arrive, when bailiffs can only turn up as a result of a court order? Again, Isn't that bending the truth at best? At worst, it's lying, bullying and scare-mongering. If you truly believe that your own company does not use any of these tactics, then presumably they'll be the one whose tender is accepted by a very cooperative lender. Unless, of course, they are found to be morally bankrupt - a condition far worse than being financially bankrupt. I thought I was lucky when my brother got me a job in a violin factory in Bow - he pulled a few strings. I decided not to stay though, as it seemed that everyone was on the fiddle. Flippant, I know, but my point is that to the average debtor, it seems like most DCAs are on the fiddle. If you were faced with being conned out of more money than you owed, wouldn't you seek advice? That is what organisations such as CAG are for. It's genuine advice for those in need, and shouldn't be a platform for criticism of the vulnerable by DCAs or any other bodies. I would hope that you'll take my points as being constructive and maybe think a while about how those who are genuinely suffering hardship should be treated in the future.

If this is the best the DCA's can do after all this time, then they're in for a rough time over the next few years. What with their constant bleatings on Credit Today and their silly and pointless award ceremony, then it's obvious they still try the same old business model that has now blown up in their faces in a big way. The countdown has begun and one by one their parent companies will start pulling the plug on them. It's already starting. We're seeing buy outs. J2 Soloutions, Cattles, Hillesdens posting 2 million losses 2 years running. It's only a matter of time, and time is on our side, not theirs.

it's so you can understand them

Jordan, you reap what you sow. DCA's have been lying, breaching laws and guidelines to line their grubby pockets. Now it's payback time. I suggest you email this link to your DCA chums. They'll be needing it soon..... McDonald's Careers Website

Jordan, A simple and straight question for you. How many debts that your company either buys or is instructed to collect carries out checks first to see if they are reasonably disputed. I ask this question because I am in this situation and I strongly suspect many thousands of people are too due to payment protection insurance. What gives a DCA the right to collect and harass people on a daily basis when there is a clear dispute which amounts to a 'vis' a 'vis' as per the UTCCR 1999

DDd - how long have you known about having Aspergers and who assessed you? If nothing else, try talking to the National Autistic Society because they have excellent advisors who may be able to give you more help than you realise. Talk to your local MIND - get support before you take any further steps. Very often, when adults are diagnosed with a disorder or health issue, temporary or permanent, the family do not want to know about it because it means they have to re-evaluate their own behaviour and perceptions. There is no answer to how to tackle this because it's not you that can change them. The support from others however may help them realise they need to change. For example, having a supporter coming to visit you in your home - then it makes the issue more 'real'. Try and ask around first before you do anything else to get support - for whatever your next steps will be - get supported.

Hi Gothicfairy, as part of the pre-action protocols lenders are supposed to explore all options when dealing with customers in arrears - this includes switching to interest only, capitalising the arrears or payment holiday. You should write to GE (copy their solicitors) asking them to consider these options (this will also help your court case). If you need help with a letter I can draft one for you:)

Extra time available BBC News - HMRC allows some late tax credit callers to try again

Link no longer working so post irrelevant and removed

Can both quotes be correct? BLUE Text is of topic and not aimed at any fellow poster's There are poster's on CAG who I like to refer them as being ORACLE'S their knowledge base is quite extensive, sometimes when they post they sometimes appear arrogant. Occasionally more than 1 appears in a thread with a different slant on the topic. Sparks fly but more information is revealed about the topic at hand. dk

I don't think I would hold in with this. Its tantamount to saying that one is owned by whoever pays one's wages. Why not extend it and say "If you want a council job, then you should be prepared to receive a kicking from those who pay your wages." I am sure that "being chased by members of the public with camcorders" is not listed on the job description. In the same sense, someone who works in a shop should expect to be recorded by customers... since, ultimately, they pay the staffs wages. Or demanding to enter the flight deck of an aircraft so we can 'watch' the pilots; we bought our tickets and so we pay their wages and therefore have a right to watch! While I maintain my original position, (that the council guy should have handled the situation better) I still do not blame him for getting a tad annoyed.

Hi, Gothicfairy, Sorry to hear about your plight. Have GE charged you any arrears charges etc over the last few years, as claiming these charges back may be a way to stave off the eviction / fight back against their pathetic attitude. BAE

fuzzy6988, were there bay markings painted on the road and even with four wheels on the pavement were you wholly within the bay markings?

Hi Annubis - just dropping by at Elsa's request IMO the CPR31.14 is asking for a bit too much - you can only request anything mentioned in the POC so that would be the agreement & the monthly payment plan they say you have agreed to. All the rest should be included in your SAR request (and/or a CPR18 request to BC - no fee) which I agree you also need to send to Egg using the template she has linked to & adding in a request for a copy of the original credit agreement if they hold it & the info in 2,3,4 of the CPR31.14 letter above. You will need to send £10.00 PO with it (do not send a cheque, do not sign the letter - print, cross thro' sig or use dig. sig to prevent copying & pasting ) You have 14 days to acknowledge service with the court & (if you state you will defend fully) a further 14 days to compile a defence. The AS can be done online. Do not believe anything BC might tell you re. procedures etc. - you would not be the first that had been mislead by them Also see comments below:

Please tell me you haven't sent this yet? Has he acknowledged the claim? He MUST do so if not, or he will lose by default and will then have to get it set aside if he can!!! He must tick the form saying "I dispute the total amount" and send it back to the court before the deadline. After that, he will have another 2 weeks to send in his defence. Defence, keep it VERY simple: 1 - Denied, the claimant is put to strict proof of the allegation. 2 - Denied, the claimant is put to strict proof of the allegation. It is admitted that a cheque for the sum was presented by defendant, it was however a cheque given to him by Mr XXX in payment for monies due to himself (Mr XXX will testify to his effect, as will Mr XXX, who witnessed the event. The Defendant doesn't know the claimant and has to his knowledge never had contact with him, and puts claimant to strict proof to show otherwise. 3 - Denied, and claimant is put to strict proof of the allegation. To the best of his knowledge, defendant has never met, spoken to or otherwise communicated with the claimant, and fails to understand why he is being named in this claim. Claimant has failed to identify under which area of the law he believes he has a contractual relationship with the defendant (which is denied in the event) and under which area of the law he believes to have redress (which is denied). Claimant's claim is totally without merit, has no basis in law or substance and it is respectfully suggested that his claim be dismissed forthwith, without wasting further the time of the Court. I believe the facts stated , bla bla bla... date and sign. Don't volunteer anything else, don't suppose why, don't suggest anything. it is up to THEM to prove their case and with you and other guy to testify that you were actually the recipient of the disputed money, I can't see it getting very far. ;-)