Thanks for your replies the creditor the knicker people if you get my drift!!!!!!!! Looking through my correspondence I believe that when I stated they had sent misleading information to hundreds of people and they tried to coerce money by misleading information , I believe this was the point with ref. to CPUTR 2008 that they decided to call it a day. Various posts on here conclude with the same misleading information they sent out and false information about a certain clause in the consumer credit act. Factually misrepresenting the information by missing certain information out. I can understand that this even fits in with Peter Bard`s interpretation of CPUTR 2008 or lack of it!!!!!!!!! For me a result and what I say is the proof is the account is now closed. Only £1.5k but that is good for me................. Once again thank you Priority one for your outstanding work!!!!! I would ask Peter Bard if something works why knock it????????????????????????

Further to my posts on the previous thread a quick update. I have been pursued for years by a creditor and the usual DCA suspects. In fact they had five DCA`s pursuing the same debt at the same time during one period. Saturday morning received a letter from the O.C. " Due to your persistent requests for information and you quoting CPUTR 2008 and the fact various collection agencies have returned the account we have decided for commercial reasons to discontinue any further action and close the account in question." I call that a result thank you CPUTR 2008 and thank you Priority for all your work.

Fantastic News. Well done you and your team. Lets hope this is one of many victories. Really pleased for you. Could not believe what the judge said at the original hearing.

Excellent oilyrag. So it is a loophole when we use the law or just a simple technicality. Yet just look at what the Insurance companies use. I never hear judges say they use loopholes or technicalities. The all system is a joke.

P.O. that's all I have been trying to say and that is why I wanted Pinky to clarify. Anyway I am off back to a peaceful existence and will view all this as a bystander. It is a much safer environment.lol. All the best and thanks again for the clarification of the points in question.

Yes the pt2537 is very informative but does warn of the cost implications. Surely if they instigate court action you then become the defendant and at that stage the CPR route is correct and without cost implications. I never advocated that you roll over and give them a CCJ by default.

Yes I agree with your statement P.O. At that stage I agree the CPR route is the correct way. That was why I questioned Pinky because it sounded like the suggestion was to go down the CPR rote at an earlier stage and that can be very dangerous. I think if you read back over my posts I was asking if the advice was correct in a courteous manner. The reason being it was pertinent to me as I have explained. I am not pursuing it in a nasty way and I just wanted to query the points. If this is considered harsh then I apologise.

It is important that if you give advice it is factual and correct. I was asking if the advice you had given was correct. Because if it was it could help me. Eg. " you state "They are allowed to send a reconstructed copy of the original agreement to fulfil a CCA request BUT they still must send original T&Cs and statements." The statements bit is factually incorrect You then state "If you want a copy of the original agreement you have to request it through the CPR rules." I in my opinion think that if you give that advice you should also make the person aware of the cost implications. Surely it is fair to question the advice and I had already asked you about the CPR route on this thread. If I am wrong on these two issues then I stand to be corrected. Priority One Thanks for the advice. I agree stalemate is good. I certainly would not go down the CPR route myself and I would certainly not advice anyone to be the claimant. Even with what I have there is still a big element of risk. There are other issues that I would be prepared to push further. Anyway back to the fight I just believe to deal with these people you need to act on factual information. But hey that's life onwards and forwards. Good Luck.

Originally Posted by jonoh1 Thanks for the reply P.O. I did the Subject access request and the reply was they are not obliged to provide statements that are over six years old. They are legally obliged to provide you with all transactional data under a Subject Access Request.... which suggests that they've either destroyed it or don't want you to have it. If they don't want you to have it and then produce something at a later date, then it puts them in breach of your Subject Access Request. They state that even under the data protection act they are not obliged to provide statements over six years old. The real reason is they have provided t&c`s which do not contain any charges in them for late payment etc..... Thus the balance can be disputed. Pinky69 stated on another thread quote "They are allowed to send a reconstructed copy of the original agreement to fulfil a CCA request BUT they still must send original T&Cs and statements. If they don't send those they have not fulfilled your request and you can put the account in dispute. Reconstructed copies are a good indication they don't have the original agreement or they would send that. If you want a copy of the original agreement you have to request it through the CPR rules." You can request it through the CPR, but you can also request it as part of your Subject Access Request.... although you'd have to stipulate that you want a true copy of any alleged Agreement they have in their possession.... in order to give them no room to manouvre with it. It was stipulated in the SAR`s and they sent the same false document. When I complained again they sent the same document but this time illegible. When I complained again they sent a blank reconstituted document. I complained again they sent the same false documents with the details obliterated and another reconstituted document. This time the reconstituted document contained the false details. So that is what started this and I was asking if this was the correct information. Because my understanding is that they have complied with a cca request when they have supplied the documents either copies or reconstituted copies plus a statement of account at that time. They have complied with your request as far as they're able to at that point, but this doesn't give you any absolute proof that no CCA is held. They could locate it at any time and go for re-enforcement at a later date. If you make a request as part of a Subject Access Request or CPR however, then they would have some explaining to do if it went to court. At the end of the day though... an (un)enforceble Agreement is still an (un)enforceable Agreement, whichever method succeeds in producing it for you. Again may be sounding stupid and it was not get at Pinky. I just don`t see how you can go down the CPR route especially after some of the judges comments You appear to agree with my interpretation. Yes I am pushing them, that is the OC. because the first DCA they passed it to became very aggressive with my wife whilst she had a serious illness. I will not go into detail. Are you certain that the OC still owns the debt? 100% certain they still own the debt and 100% certain that it would be impossible for them to have an enforceable agreement. They are threatening to sell it rather than go to court. I have begged them to take it to court. Even now got their chief executive involved. I am holding the OC responsible for the actions and I will push them for whatever it takes. I am not pulling the hearts and strings but they have done some seriously bad things. The OC said they investigated, so they say (another cut and paste letter) and said they don`t think they have done anything wrong. They always say this.... Anyway I know many people have such horror stories. So I must admit this as now become a personal vendetta against them. Win or lose I will never let it go. So to be honest the point about legal enforceability is now a secondary issue to me. Understand your final comments P.O. and normally I would agree. I will not to into detail but whatever happens I will fight these cretins to the end. Thanks for your help and advice. Best of luck in your quest.

Thanks for the reply P.O. I did the subject access request and the reply was they are not obliged to provide statements that are over six years old. Pinky69 stated on another thread quote "They are allowed to send a reconstructed copy of the original agreement to fulfil a CCA request BUT they still must send original T&Cs and statements. If they don't send those they have not fulfilled your request and you can put the account in dispute. Reconstructed copies are a good indication they don't have the original agreement or they would send that. If you want a copy of the original agreement you have to request it through the CPR rules." So that is what started this and I was asking if this was the correct information. Because my understanding is that they have complied with a cca request when they have supplied the documents either copies or reconstituted copies plus a statement of account at that time. You appear to agree with my interpretation. Yes I am pushing them, that is the OC. because the first DCA they passed it to became very aggressive with my wife whilst she had a serious illness. I will not go into detail. I am holding the OC responsible for the actions and I will push them for whatever it takes. I am not pulling the hearts and strings but they have done some seriously bad things. The OC said they investigated, so they say (another cut and paste letter) and said they don`t think they have done anything wrong. Anyway I know many people have such horror stories. So I must admit this as now become a personal vendetta against them. Win or lose I will never let it go. So to be honest the point about legal enforceability is now a secondary issue to me.

No did not say that Pinky just said you are starting to sound like them. So what the heck why should I bother. I just base an opinion on your own posts in your words. Probably you are quite sound and I am certainly not knocking anyone that helps people. The simple reason I asked you to confirm your advice was because I have a similar problem. Stalemate at the moment, which is good. Been passed around various cretin DCA`s They provided a cca that had my name and address on it but none of my true details and not my signature. They sent this same document again for a subject access request. When I informed them of this they then sent the same document but with the details illegible. I continued to complain then they sent a reconstituted document. Even the reconstituted document did not comply with Waksman. I told them this and then they sent the original document with the details obliterated. They included a reconstituted document and stated they had now done this because the microfiche copy was obliterated. lol. Even this attempt does not comply with Waksman. No prescribed terms contained in the signature document. I asked for statements for the life of the account. They stated these are no longer available because if the account is more than six years old they do not need to supply them. lol. Hence my original question Pinky69 Stated they shoud be supplied. I was asking if this advice was true. If it was it could be of help. You can view the documents sent on my thresd and the obliterated copy.

Thank You P.O. Whilst I have total respect for you. I am not trying to draw comparisons. I am only trying to point out that certain advice without understanding the consequences can be as bad as the letter mentioned. There is not much I have not read on this subject yet even I agree I am not experienced enough to give advice. Yet I do have the experience to understand good advice and the consequences and bad advice and the consequences. I certainly do not think that you can agree with some of Pinky69 posts especially the lack of care to the cost implications for newbies. Yet I agree each to their own.

Pinky69 You are starting to sound like some of the DCA`s I deal with.

Final post again from me if you give advice on this forum when you know that it may have cost implications especially to newbies then I leave it to your own conseince

Pinky69 Thank you again. Factual information yes, information that is not factual is similar to the original letter mentioned in the title of this thread.