As ever the T&C's could relate to anything or anyone, so file under I.. They have complied in so far as supply what they believe is the agreement, but we know different,. The fact they quoted SI1983/1557 means they know they are onto a loser with this one

Well anything you get from them file under I

Muckie Hall, aaarrrrrhh yes. They specialise in the completely unenforceable and statute barred

There's further information about use of CPR 31.14 here: DCA: Using CPR 31.14 to Your Advantage - Consumer Wiki What dates do you have for the acknowledgement and defence ?? Also who has filed the claim and do you have any idea what it is for ??

FORGET THE SAR. The time is passed for such pleasantries !! Hit them with a CPR 31.14. Details can be found here: DCA: Using CPR 31.14 to Your Advantage - Consumer Wiki

Don't get hung on with the NoA as your letter demonstrates the DCA's often write these themselves, so they are completely meaningless. So have Cap1 supplied the agreement for this or have you yet to CCA them ?

As I have already mentioned on another thread: They are attempting to obfuscate the fact that their agreements do NOT comply with s61 of CCA at all. The fact they have "removed" your personal details doesn't detract from the fact that the supplied documentation doesn't contain the prescribed terms for a credit agreement. The prescribed terms specified in Schedule 6 of Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 SI 1553 are as follows: • credit limit • repayments • rate(s) of interest There is no mention of any of these terms in the Cap1 Application form and, as such, this document has no validity in law as a regulated credit agreement. To summarise; They are talking complete and utter Bovine Excrement !!!

In answer to your question, no. What they are saying may well be correct, but the documentation they send must still have all the prescribed terms present. This seems to be a new tactic from Cap1, they obviously have realised that their "agreements" aren't compliant.

This covers what you are thinking: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/110127-consumer-credit-agreements-regulations-2.html#post2000049

Here you go Delfi: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/186046-there-god-1st-credit.html

I wonder how they are enjoying this thread as I know they do drop by from time to time. Morning/Afternoon/Good evening, 1st Credit Minions, we hope you are enjoying the show We are certainly enjoying you official declawing.

At long last the OFT has taken action against unfair issuance of SD's and other misleading activities from our favourite DCA, First Credit Ltd OFT imposes requirements on 1st Credit over debt collection practices 20/09 25 February 2009 The OFT has taken action against 1st Credit Ltd requiring the company to improve its debt collection practices. The OFT has imposed 'requirements' on 1st Credit using consumer credit powers, after an investigation found that some of its business processes and procedures failed to meet satisfactory standards. As a result, 1st Credit Ltd and its associated companies must: * refrain from issuing statutory demands warning of bankruptcy where it is unlikely that proceedings will be initiated * not discuss legal action with consumers unless it is likely that such action will be taken * ensure that sensitive cases involving vulnerable individuals, for example those with mental health or medical problems, are dealt with appropriately, and * ensure that all matters of concern raised with them by the free advice sector and other third parties are dealt with appropriately. 1st Credit must also report back to the OFT every six months providing statistics regarding the number of enforcement actions it has taken against debtors. Failure to comply with the requirements could lead to a fine of up to £50,000 for occurance and/or possible revocation of 1st Credit's consumer credit licence. http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/20-09 - PRESS RELEASE http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/press_release_attachments/1stcreditrequirements.pdf - 1ST CREDITS / CONNAUGHTS / LCS DIRECTIVES

They are attempting to obfuscate the fact that their agreements do NOT comply with s61 of CCA at all. The fact they have "removed" your personal details doesn't detract from the fact that the supplied documentation doesn't contain the prescribed terms for a credit agreement. The prescribed terms specified in Schedule 6 of Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 SI 1553 are as follows: • credit limit • repayments • rate(s) of interest There is no mention of any of these terms in the Cap1 Application form and, as such, this document has no validity in law as a regulated credit agreement. To summarise; They are talking complete and utter Bovine Excrement !!!

Interesting. This DOES NOT comply as the prescribed terms don't appear to be within the signature document. Now IF the terms where indeed on the reverse then it would, but what you have here, appears to be a pre-approved mailer application with ZERO reference to any terms overleaf.

Alf, you have already given them your Final Response, so there is nothing further to say on the matter.

Part time hours on that one then

Why would they want to check things like that, or even the enforceability of the debt in question. Just remember when you get your SD to go for costs as well @ £9.25 an hour for a LiP.

Interesting. Don't bother sending anything to Connaught as their next move is most likely to be an SD for this debt, dispute or not. That's their typical MO. They are affiliated to 1st

1st I'd say as LCS are simply sols-for-hire anyway

Alf, why are you still burgering about with these muppets. I'd be inclined to put this to bed once and for all. Send them this and see what happens Have fun

So let them send their meaningless letters then. Hey it will keep them happy

Mev, ignore what they say about LoP as it's a method of assigning debts and honestly has nowt to do with how you deal with them All it means is that they are now the owners of the COMPLETE debt, all rights and duties of the original creditor have now been assigned to them. Now as for your issue, have you ensured that they have the legal rights to a/ collect this debt b/ add charges in the way that they have ??

If that's all they are saying then file them under ignore until such time as they have something substantive to say.

Chocolate tea pots. At the end of the day you still have a solid s127(3) application form and any action that is taken is a simple defence. So just wait and see what the next DCA has to say for themselves.

Time for Trading Standards on this one then. Include the phone harassment as well as they non-compliant documentation.