yes get your report and issue a challenge on the wrong information, experian have to remove it under data act

hey thats a good one thanks, and thanks for your goodluck wish, same to you, thought everyone hated me Right off il say loan company must evidence the agreement, il go there thanks

let me explain, A company like NCO are employed/contracted to the creditor thus giving them legal authority and recognition to act on thier behalf. If there is no record/evidence of the debt then obviously it can not be pursued, that is common sense. You see in my view, the problem with the majority of people on this site, so far seems to be that you all have a irrational sense of injustice. Nothing in this world or indeed law is free, if you borrow someones money, have a service or contract with some one for one of the previous then it is an exchange of promises (quid pro quo) . You have to honour your promise as they have yours, that is how fundementally the law of contract works. Exchange of promise for promise, agreement for agreement. If you fail to carry out your obligation then you are in breach of contract and indeed fall foul of common law. In fact such companies as NCO are trying to avoid taking litigation against persons who breach thier contracts by trying to work away forward. Do you seriously believe people should just be able to say, oh well I cant afford to carry out my promise, I should not have to pay, you are harrasing me by asking me to do so?? where would these leave the economic market, insurance prices??

yes im recieving abuse, people saying talking garbage etc

section 3 dude, section 1 does not apply, if pursuing lawful business like common law protection under contract for breach of contract. Entitled to recover and pursue. Read up

dont be so silly, acts of pariliment are not open to interpretation, harrasment has to have a clear and set parameter. Sction 7 of the act defines as conduct which includes alarming the person or causing distress, must at least involve two occasions. Thomas v News Group Newspapers. Further to this S1 (3) provides a valid defence when the conduct was pursued for the purpose of detecting crime, any legal requirement or reasonable valid pursuent ie contract !!! Add to this the test of harrasment is an objective one, s1(2) the defendant or accussed will only be guilty if its shown that a a resonable person in possesion of the same information would think the conduct amounted to harrasment. It is not straitforward and is mainly used in Tort the remedy being injuction. By the way I dont work for NCO but i put the argument that debtors are themselves in breach of contract and law. NCO is legally recovering under common law and that is not harrasment in any court. Read up on it, please!!!

harrsament has to be know to likely cause some one distress, simply calling someone, like kncoking on a door is not legal harrasment , actually, and yes pay your bills and stop looking for excuses

post edited

depends what would you sue for?

who said OFT makes law?

actually most precedents are set by county and chancery courts, unless a precedent case gets appealed etc

lol, yes , dont get me wrong im all in favour of dealing a blow to capitalism, indeed im merely playing devils advocate! The banks do not want to challenge most claims because quite rightly the OFT's investigation is expected to draw the conclusion that it is unfair to charge anything over its recomendation. Now once that has been declared its kind of likle a guide to the banks what they might be able to argue as fair! However as you have mentioned it is true that ultimatley it is for the courts to make a precedent upon (something the banks are currently afraid of too) . personnaly , without playing advocate!! I would say the banks will avoid opening thier books etc and settle out of court, everyone knows it does not cost over £5 max in real cost to the banks. Having said this as devils advocate, iw ould be keenly examining this report, recomendations , sure their lawyers will be doing so lol Interesting debate though ??

Im a law student , you are right if a charge is unfair its un fair and unlawfull, what im saying is it will no longer be looked at as unfair, by the courts,

yes but what im saying is OFT are going to make a ruling on what is fair to charge, hence change is on its way,

Wrong!! The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld. The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april