Surely its not beyond our tabloids to expose the bullying that goes on by these companies. Theyve manage to expose racism in the police. How hard could it be to get a job as a professional:rolleyes: with some of the less reputable DCAs and learn how they are taught. How hard would it be for a member of the press to contact 0870 ******** urgently and quote reference number ******** and listen to the torrid of abuse that most or not all of us have had to put up with at one time or another or what about pretending to be a neighbour who has got a call requesting info about xxxxxx and asking whats in it for them:lol:

The trouble with the tabloids is that they like sensational, salacious stories, and that they are utterly unreliable. Their interest in a story lasts only as long as they think it will sell papers, or until a more newsworthy story such as some football moron changing his hairstyle comes along. On occasion they do not let the facts interfere with the story (eh, Piers?).

I suggest that there would be more value in trying to interest a serious journalist. Aside from the human interest angle of the unnecessary misery DCAs cause, there are a number of political angles. For example, why have the government failed to control this grubby industry effectively? Could it be because banks and other financial institutions seem to be able to exercise extraordinary influence upon the Dear Leader, who is well known to be impressed by wealth? Could it be that some MPs have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, because of their business interests? Or perhaps it's simply that the government doesn't understand the concept of borrowing, and thinks that if someone lends you money you don't actually have to pay it back.

Arise, Lord Cabot... ;-)

Presumably you still have the paperwork for the policy, which should contain all the terms and conditions, so you can check what it says about cancellation.

If you haven't, Assure UK have a freephone number - 0800 980 0770 - you could call and ask for a copy of the paperwork.

As for the DCAs, inform them (by fax or letter) that because they have failed to provide full details you are unable to confirm whether the money is actually owed, and you will contact them again after you have taken advice.

The DCA's contract is with the insurer, not you, so they should look to their client for their fees (unless the policy contract specifically states otherwise).

Rereading MBNA's letter, I find that it refers to an account number which does not relate to OH at all!

We have now sent another letter asking them to respond to the original letter, but this time basing their reply upon the correct account.

Part of me is hoping that they'll send the same standard letter with the correct account number, so I can then send them copies of 11 statements with no mention of PPI and ask them to explain.

I have also now got hold of a copy of the T & Cs for their PPI, and the policy is considered terminated if the cardholder fails to make the minimum payment 4 times.

All you have to do to cancel your insurance is tell the insurer that you want to cancel with effect from the date you no longer require cover. Tesco will then try and charge you a £75 cancellation fee, which is a penalty charge by any other name.

An alternative to cancellation, if you are storing your car, is to change the cover on your existing policy to 'laid-up' - the premium is substantially cheaper than the standard policy. I always do this when going to sandy places on one of Bliar's adventures.

This has happened to me twice. On the first occasion, the RAC took well over £100 for membership; I was not a member. They refused to refund unless I proved I had not asked for the DD to be set up, despite the fact that membership was not in another name and the address was hundreds of miles away. The bank refunded under the DD gtee and subsequently the RAC wrote and apologised, citing a salesman's error in writing the account number. Quite how he also got the sort code and account name wrong too, and why the bank didn't check the signature was not explained.

On the second occasion I had a fixed monthly DD of £8 to London Electric (now Electricite de Frog or somesuch), which was for gas at my house (which I rarely get to, hence the low amount). I was on ops in Iraq, and received a letter saying that LE had taken, via DD, over £350 as an 'annual adjustment. I immediately wrote to both my bank and LE. LE clearly failed to read my letter, simply sending a standard 'phone our 0800 number' response. The bank refunded the amount under the DD gtee. I cancelled my DDs to LE, and told them I'd pay by cheque in future. They tried to set up new DDs many times over the next few weeks, which is apparently a common practice.

It's unlikely that the national media will take an interest in this case; sad though it is for those concerned, similar things happen every day. Similarly, 'Watchdog' doesn't usually become involved in issues until they've had many complaints about the same company or circumstances. Local newspapers may run something, but have proportionately less clout than the nationals.

I think it unlikely that EasyJet will be swayed from the position outlined in their letter. This is nothing new for them. They have lots of experience of dealing with adverse publicity, and have gone from strength to strength despite it; even the regular demonstrations of their customer service being shown on 'Airline' do not seem to have damaged their business. Similarly, Ryanair seems to be growing in spite of not being able to spell Londonderry correctly, their lack of customer service or the appalling O'Leary creature's regular outbursts.

I fear that where EasyJet is concerned it's very much a case of caveat emptor.

Thankfully, four out of five children now recover from leukaemia, so the future isn't as black as it used to be even relatively recently.

There are a number of charities that will assist the families of seriously ill children in cases of genuine financial hardship; GOSH's PALS department will be able to provide advice on this.

My work brings me into contact with serious injury, illness and death regularly. I have to be able to look at cases dispassionately. I have considerable experience of dealing with cases of people taken ill abroad - if anyone thinks that insurance isn't necessary, imagine the costs involved if a child was taken ill overseas.

Tesco Insurance (aka Direct Line) tried to charge me £75 cancellation fee + 1 month's premium when I moved to Northern Ireland, where they do not provide cover.

My position was that they terminated the contract by being unable to provide cover. Had this failed I intended to go down the unlawful penalty charge route. Their position was not to respond to letters, and then to start debt collection action. After a particularly shrill and ignorant member of their staff phoned me and demanded that I call them back to pay, and we had a discussion about the OFT Guidelines on debt collection (0870 numbers, tut tut), they immediately passed it to Moorcroft (DCA).

They sent the usual threats, and I responded with a CCA request which they have defaulted on. Tesco sent me two different copies of their standard agreement, with the dates they were printed on them, and the wrong address (neither the one where I was originally insured or my new one). These don't meet the CCA requirements, so thanks to the incompetence of both Moorcroft and Tesco, I now need no longer worry as the alleged debt is now unenforceable.

HSBC use Metropolitan Collection Services of Birmingham, which is wholly-owned by HSBC. MCS in turn own a grubby little outfit called The Central Debt Enforcement Agency, whose speciality is sending out letters that look like court forms. If you ask MCS if CDEA is anything to do with them, they'll deny it; however, if you ask if they have a phone number for CDEA they'll put you through (probably to the next desk), and you can also have fun pointing out to them that CDEA's letters show them to be owned by MCS...

Here are a few from some of my clients:

Metropolitan Collection Services, the in-house DCA for HSBC:

- telephone harassment even when asked to correspond only in writing

- using a second DCA (CDEA) concurrently

- lying by claiming no connection to CDEA (which is wholly owned by MCS)

Central Debt Enforcement Agency (CDEA) (acting for HSBC)

- sending letters deliberately designed to look like court papers

- implying, through their company name, that they are an official agency

Moorcroft (acting for Tesco Insurance)

- failing to respond satisfactorily to CCA request

Central Collections (acting for VW Finance)

- telephone harassment

- refusing to freeze action on a disputed debt

- claiming the OFT guidelines don't apply to them

ECI (acting for Cabot)

- instructing debtors to contact them on a premium rate number

Global Vantedge (acting for MBNA)

- contacting debtors directly and bypassing appointed third party

- refusing to deal with an appointed third party

- telephone harassment in spite of requests to correspond only in writing

- refusing to freeze action when debt is disputed

- risibly claiming that the OFT Guidelines and the Administration of Justice Act don't apply to them because they are a US-owned company calling from India!

My OH had an MBNA credit card which was defaulted some just over 2 years ago; since then she has been in a debt management plan arranged by CCCS. Recently PPI premiums had started to appear on statements. With CCCS' agreement, I drafted a letter stating that my OH had no knowledge of asking for PPI, did not want it and asking for a refund of all premiums. We asked that MBNA produce proof that she had asked for PPI if they thought she had. MBNA replied stating that she had requested PPI from the outset, that the premium had been shown on every statement (this is simply incorrect as to fact), but that they had now cancelled the PPI. They refuse to refund anything, and failed to provide proof that PPI had been asked for, though they did send a copy of the standard policy!

From this, it seems that the policy is void if an account is in default for more than 90 days.

My question is this: Should MBNA have continued to charge premiums, and interest thereon, when the policy was void? Secondly, can a CCA request be used in respect of PPI policies?