Exactly Oilyrag. You put forward the views far more eloquently than I ever could. Agree time to move on. DCA`s to fight not each other. My last comment.

I have never said the laws have changed. That is fact. Things in the real world since post Waksman have changed. That is fact Now I know the reason reading your comments why I never bothered posting for years. One can only go with ones experiences. So obviously your experiences post Waksman are good and nothing needs to be done differently hence I respect that and will comment no further.

It seems to me some of you are taking things personally rather than moving forward. I also think some of you are missing the point. There is no magic answer and it is quite irrational to keep using this argument. Strategy is quite different to a magic answer. I can only speak from my own experience and post Waksman things have changed and also attitudes have changed that is fact. The laws have not changed I agree with Oily certain things no longer work. That is fact. The thread is a waste of time if we can`t freely express ideas and share our experiences. How many of you post Waksman have had the same experiences you had pre Waksman. I agree you may have many posts and threads but all pre test case. I agree that you may have had many success and helped people. That`s great. Every case is different and will need different tactics. So no problem if everything still works the same as pre Waksman then I will bow to your superior knowledge. It would now seem you have to have x amount of posts and threads before you can express yourself.

So as your strategy worked since Waksman. I was being very serious and good intentioned. I was simply trying to improve my knowledge and find ways that worked to deal with these people. I am sure some other people feel the same way. I never said there was a miracle Karma. Best of luck

Pinky I do not understand your reply. Waksman states that 77/78 is for information only. Thus a reconstituted document satisfies the 77/78 so for that reason the account would not be in dispute. At this stage the bank could just say we have the original but it is not available at the moment. Thus whatever you say the DCA`s then carry on their nasty ways, fact. I then do not understand how you use the CPR route if there is no court action. Perhaps I am missing something and your knowledge would be helpful.

If the reconstituted document now satisfies 77/78 then the account is not in dispute. I quite agree with you on calling their bluff on legal action. Please could you explain the CPR route. They will always try and walk all over you that`s how they make their money.......

The reconstituted document will now satisfy 77/78 hence the account is not in dispute. Thus the DCA`s can continue with their nasty actions. The CPR route correct me if I am wrong is for only when one party takes the other to court or threatens court action. Otherwise can be viewed as a fishing trip.

Pinky I disagree that the DCA`s have never accepted the templates. Pre Waksman with most DCA`S you could eventually get them to pass the account back to the O.C. when they could not satisfy the CCA request. Now they can satisfy that very easily and thus the account is not in dispute. There is an all new attitude now from the DCA`s. This is fact from experience. Obviously the proof will be in the pudding and we will see what takes place in the future if we just try and deal with them in the same way.

Pinky please explain how these work any more A CCA request, Account in Dispute, We have all agreed that since Waksman it is very easy for them to pass anything off for 77/78. Then it is satisfied hence the account is no longer in dispute. All I am saying is that since Waksman these do not appear to work. What you seem to be saying is I am not interested if you don`t like it then go away. I have never attacked any poster or the site. Yet is obvious to a blind man that certain things have changed. It is the change in attitude of the DCA`s we have to deal with or the floodgates to abuse are again open. This was what this excellent site previously helped to stop in most cases.

The point which I probably made badly was I do not know if this would work and it needs proof that it would even stand a chance. What I do know from experience is that since Waksman it is an all new ball game dealing with DCA`s and third parties. That which worked previously now does not and that is fact. I was pointing out to Pinky the bit about dealing with DCA`s and that I was not stating the law had changed. Even though some D.J. appear to think it as. Neither was I advocating the use of this letter. I just agree exchange of ideas is good but to evolve proper strategy is even better. Thus we look to the more experienced people to provide this direction. An idea good or bad needs proper dissection and then it can be cast a side. The answer is in the results of which I have seen no evidence. The template letters worked previously with DCA`s now they don`t and that is fact.

The thread was titled "Being bothered by Debt Collectors/3rd Parties /Soli" I agree the law is always as it was. Please someone explain this to some of the D.J. Who deal in morality rather than the law (Humbleman) Dealing with debt collectors and third parties is now a different ball game and this is proof positive. What worked pre test case seems to be inadequate now. This was certainly not a rallying call but a plea for strategy. I do think cagers support each other but one would not think so from this thread. I believe in the past this site as provided excellent advice and service. This is not the point and the point is dealt with in the title of the thread.

I agree with you Oilyrag. Whilst I am not saying that the ideas put forward would work, I am saying I just do not know. The other point is that whilst we are fighting between ourselves (divide and conquer) the enemy seems to have gathered ranks and become much more organised and sophisticated. Pre test cases the template letters seemed to work and now they are totally dismissed by the enemy. I can`t find anyone who can give a definitive answer about the actual meaning to Jo Public of the test cases. All have differing views and no strategy to counter attack. Pre test case my opinion was that we had good strategy. Now I do not believe we have a decent strategy at all. Anything that did previously work in our favour seems to have been totally dismissed by the banks and the cretin DCA`s. So if we must argue let it be constructive open minded and the target for us to again become as organised and sophisticated as the enemy.

I was under the strange impression that we are all on the same side. We must have an open mind. I was here a long time ago when people said without any doubt that you could not challenge a credit agreement. lol. I understand both sides of the coin. The first law of the jungle divide and conquer. The banks read these threads so tread with care or else that is another victory chalked up for them. Constructive argument is great. Defeating each other on the same side is a gift to the enemy. My own personal view is that between us we can and will win. Thus all points good or different or bad must be viewed. What we try and what works is what wins. Not futile arguments.

Hi S.F.U.

Sounds like the Judge was an avid reader of some type of forum.lol

That I agree with reallymadwoman. Yet that did not seem the case in Humbleman yesterday

Agree with you SFU. I think what I am trying to say is that I am surprised by the level of spin. Also some of the very interesting connections. I do not understand how the Humbleman case was enforced yesterday on our understanding of the Consumer Credit Act. Surely should be an appeal. Ever case on it`s merits. Surely at some stage even the level of possibility must swing against the banks.

reallymadwoman. I have read the judgement till I am blue in the face. The interpretation you state is also my own interpretation. I was just very surprised to read this version on a Chambers website especially Fountain Court chambers . Because of it`s connection with the case. If this is the hymn sheet they all sing from then we shall have problems. I just do not understand their interpretation.

I am now lost just thought the above was an interesting version on the Fountain Court chamber website. Former member of the Fountain Court chamber in the Temple was Waksman.

This is the quote from the Fountain Court legal website QC ......... Bankim Thanki QC and Andrew Mitchell act in credit card test case On 23 December 2009 the Mercantile Court in Manchester handed down judgment in a test case arising out of the numerous requests for information under the Consumer Credit Act made by claims management companies seeking to avoid liabilities incurred by their clients under credit card agreements. The Court held that agreements could be enforced in circumstances where a copy of the original agreement signed by the customer could not be produced by the bank. The Court also struck out claims against RBS and Barclays Bank. Bankim Thanki QC represented RBS and Andrew Mitchell represented Barclays. The judgment of HHJ Waksman QC is cited as Carey v HSBC [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB). This is not how I understand Wakesman`s judgement. This seems to indicate a much broader judgement than 77/78. I thought that the original was required both for CPR and enforcement by a DJ. This statement above is like saying that the Consumer Credit Act is not worth the paper it is written on. If these are the QC`s version of Wakeman then what chance have we. It seems the cost situation is to put people off fighting. Poor judgements, appeals all add up to a great lunch ticket for the legal bods. Looking at the Humbleman case If everything was so good for the consumer I would have thought that some CMC would have taken this on for free and fight the appeal. I am finding all this to be some kind of stitch up. How can they quote this version it is like saying the consumer credit act is now rewritten by Waksman

Agree with every word andrew1. Sometimes you just need to investigate everything. Never act without the advice of experienced caggers because most avenues have been well tried. I must say whilst I don`t agree with Nuke em in the main. He did awaken me to Securitisation. It made me do plenty of investigation on this. I have had some quite nasty replies from the OC when I have asked them if the alleged account was the subject of securitisation. The only way I have got rid of DCA`s is the use of time tested methods on here. Not sure if these will work any more. Thus combined strategy is of the most importance. I do like the Nick approach. Remember it is the DCA`s that are the enemy we fight not each other.

Yes agree Nick would certainly think that your letter is a good way to deal with them.

I do not have enough knowledge to agree or disagree with Nuke em. Yet looking at the negatives and positives after reading all your comments I would certainly not send such a letter. I much prefer the Nick approach, but that is only my opinion. So I do agree with you Priority One. At least the idea was aired and then the negatives do not make it very attractive proposition. Again only my opinion. Yet I do value all opinions.

Well said Bookworm 100% agree. It is all a very steep learning curve. Also agree it is very dangerous to go with advice without it being completely dissected for the very reasons you advance.

Surely this is the correct use of the forum. Some one with an idea to defend themselves and then states the idea. Other more knowledgeable and excellent people put forward there views. Then if possible the idea can be used. If not possible the idea can be destroyed before it does any damage. The moral is do not starve the ideas, but put forward and then take a measured view. That is after the reaction of the very formidable information on these forums. In other words take nothing as gospel and do not do anything without good advice.