Hi. I'm getting various odd errors. "insufficient privileges" when trying to do something as basic as using the http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/profile.php?do=editoptions link for example. Plus other weird errors. If someone on the site team could see if they can fix things that would be great. Thanks.

And CAG continue to delete threads where people complain about this. Has now gone beyond shameful.

Admin make foolish decision => Try to justify it => Try to bury it => Delete thread to pretend it isn't happening.

I notice other sites didn't hesitate to ban Lowells from posting.

Utterly shameful that Lowells have been allowed to post. CAG used to be better than this.

Cabot trying to spread misinformation via here? Note: The OP hasn't been back since 26th June.

Limit the number of times a debt can be sold on? One time = The buyer would pay much more attention to it. None at all = OC's would be more responsible if they couldn't opt out from collecting.

:shock: No offence to your uncle, but that is shamefully poor advice from a solicitor. Get him to read a copy of the Limitations Act 1980. Limitation Act 1980 (c. 5) To be effective, any acknowledge must be made by the person liable for the debt. Nothing else will count. The creditor could send you a letter every days for the entire 6 years and it still wouldn't stop the debt becoming statute barred. Also, any acknowledgement must be in writing and signed by the debtor (or their representative).

Yep. It's different depending on whether you are admitting or defending a claim. The system stinks a bit either way, as in both circumstances it is open to abuse by an unscrupulous creditor/DCA.

If within 14 days, then.

Not true. A CC claim form requires you to reply with your offer to the address for response given on the forms. That is the address of the creditor or their solicitors. If it's less than 14 days from the judgement date, then that is also not true. Instead you apply to have the order redetermined under CPR rule 14.3.

Write to the court and ask for it to be transferred to your local court to be redetermined. There is a template somewhere?

I can't believe you didn't take the opportunity to title this thread - "Empire strikes back." Sorry.

Complain. If they won't remove it report them to the Information Commissioner.

As the OFT says, the creditor/DCA is fully responsible for the conduct of the people they employ to act for them. Creation cannot claim that they were unaware of this practice, so they have no excuse whatsoever.

I think we all know how unlikely that is.

Here The Law Society - 1st Credit

In other words, it's not actually banned yet?

Thanks, but all that is a lot of "we wills". Most of which they haven't even started on. So I'm afraid that doesn't help. If it is now banned, where is that legally enacted? That is the important question. Election promises mean diddly squat.

Thanks cerberusalert. I think I would like to see that in black and white somewhere more reliable though. CT is not exactly the most reliable source. I also want to know under what legal basis they have done it? We need something concrete that we can quote back to DCAs and regulators.

They've promised. Not sure if they have actually done anything to put that in place though? Presumably it would require legislation and/or changes to the civil procedure rules?

After having read their post there on 'CCA unenforceability', that looks highly likely. To put out such ill educated and misinformed information suggests a DCA/lender 'stooge'.

Backed off? Unless you have explicit written proof from the creditor/court that they have formally withdrawn the SD, then you should go ahead with having it set aside.

And on their forum. Consumer Action Group... what's the problem? 8)

The official SD form also requires the creditor to put the loacl court to the debtor in PART A. http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/forms/ew/Form6-01.doc