Standing back and looking at it again I think the argument may be a lot simpler. For every debtor there has to be a creditor. You cannot have one without the other. Where money is owed, it is owed by one party to another. A creditor is a party who has a claim to the services of another (debtor or borrower). Therefore it is not necessary to actually lend money out to be a creditor, it is being in the position of being owed that makes you a creditor. A creditor is not necessarily then a lender. From Gillhams.com website - "An unsecured creditor is a person who is owed money by a company or person (a "debtor") but does not have recourse to a fund, asset or collateral for payment in the event of a default of payment by the debtor." There is no mention there of the requirement to lend in the first place. But leave that aside for now. If Cabot is not the creditor then who is taking the cases to court. If it is Cabot Europe on behalf of Cabot UK then Cabot UK allegedly is owed the money, so must be a creditor. If Cabot UK says it is not the creditor just an administrator then they must be administering it on behalf of a creditor as there has to be one. It is therefore that creditor that must take the debtor to court. What Cabot seem to be saying is that when they bought the debt the 'creditor' disappeared from existence to be replaced by a pure collector. But if the creditor disappears no-one is owed money so there can be no debtor. Also, if Cabot is collecting and then uses the money for its own ends it must be a creditor, or it is misappropriating funds from any true creditor. If Cabot are saying they are not creditors and the debt exists and they are collecting it, then the creditor must still be the OC, who is the one that should bring the action. I am labouring the point I know. Cabot could say they paid a fee to get the rights to the debt repayment, but there still has to be a creditor for a debt to exist. Without a creditor a debt does not exist. So, if you write to the original creditor after a debt has been sold and ask them for their legal position and they say they are no longer the creditor and the debt buyer says they are not a creditor then there can be no debt and no debtor. Of course they won't ever say that, they will just say you have to talk to the debt buyer about it. But you could always ask the DCA for details of the creditor and refuse to deal with them until they tell you. After all shouldn't every debtor know exactly who the creditor is and therefore who to CCA to prove it? Might prove handy in court too.

I checked and double checked that FIRE (Ltd) wasn't on the CCA public register then sent a complaint. Within hours one was there and I got a nice E-Mail saying they'd located one. I think that may have been a mistake by the register holder? But it runs out in Dec this year. Also check out the addresses and names of officers that run the organisation. Separate from Cabot eh? Licence Reg Number - 0496716

This part of the OFT site also makes interesting reading. They put debt collection into the 'high risk' category requiring greater oversight. Also, as one previous poster on this thread points out, Financial Investigations and Recoveries (Europe) Ltd (FIRE Ltd) Company No 02958421, does not appear to have a licence if you check the register. As I understand it, a Ltd company is a separate legal entity and should have all licences etc in its own right. It cannot use another company's licence. I recently complained to the Info Comm as FIRE's address on their register was Cabot's, not their own so was incorrect. Despite this being a serious offence the reply I got was along the lines that 'they didn't mean to do it and they've now changed the address so all's hunky dory' isn't it. But now we find that Cabot are passing 'client' details on to an unlicensed company. OFT debt collection guidance only applies to licensed companies! So are Cabot conducting unlicensed activity that is outside the guidance through a proxy (FIRE)? Conducting unlicensed activity is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonemnt. So why does the OFT not check up on these basic things when assessing licences???!!! What's worse though is that any money paid to Cabot / FIRE could be at risk. If the company(s) were shut down the debts would almost certainly be sold on. And any money already paid could be ignored by the new debt owner as it was paid under unlicensed terms. They would just say you have to go after the old company to get that back. With no firm guidance from the OFT people who are paying should consider telling Cabot they are ceasing payments until the licence position is sorted or the OFT underwrites them (fat chance). The OFT have a problem. If they shut down CF (UK) it would effectively shut down CF (Europe). All those jobs and lost tax revenue. That's probably more their concern. And with the current economic climate I bet they feel that they need every debt collector they can get.

One question that's always bugged me is, if the original creditor incorrectly assigns the debt to a DCA to whom you acknowledge the debt in some way how does that stand in law? Especially if the OC never gets told you acknowledged the debt or received any part of the payment. In that case surely the acknowledgement is not made the the OC so never happened in law? Otherwise just telling your mate down the pub that you owed money would reset the clock as they would have the same legal standing as that unlawfully appointed DCA? I ask this as, with no proper assignment there is presumably no proper contract between OC and DCA, so the DCA should not have access to the details etc in the first place.

Then what's going on? All this company name mucking about costs them money, so what's the point? I personally think that HMRC should be taking a very keen interest in these companies, especially in these tax-strapped times!

As posted on the other thread: Well it's a bit of a pity for them that Tocatto Ltd doesn't appear on the Information Commissioner's site as a data controller which as a Ltd company they are required to do to be a debt collector, if that's what they intend to do with the company. You can't process peoples' data without it. What has actually happened is that one of the three Lowell companies (Lowell Portfolio II) has changed its name to Tocatto. It seems to me that many of these companies change names in order to offload the really, really tainted, bad and unenforceable debt (CAG stuff) onto them so the parent company can take the tax break and improve their balance sheet at the same time. Or am I being a cynic? Cabot / FIRE springs to mind too.

Well it's a bit of a pity for them that Tocatto Ltd doesn't appear on the Information Commissioner's site as a data controller which as a Ltd company they are required to do to be a debt collector, if that's what they intend to do with the company. You can't process peoples' data without it. What has actually happened is that one of the three Lowell companies (Lowell Portfolio II) has changed its name to Tocatto. It seems to me that many of these companies change names in order to offload the really, really tainted, bad and unenforceable debt (CAG stuff) onto them so the parent company can take the tax break and improve their balance sheet at the same time. Or am I being a cynic? Cabot / FIRE springs to mind too.

Under the Information Commissioner's rules, the address that a Limited company uses on the ICO web-site must be their address registered with Companies House, not a contact address. FIRE have published their contact address, not their registered address. I have checked this with the ICO helpdesk. As far as I can see FIRE are therefore in breach of the rules so can be liable for fines etc. I have pointed this out to them but they ignored me and recently (10th Jan) renewed their licence with the same flaw. "Data controller’s address If you are a limited company you must provide your registered office address and in all other cases you must provide the address of your principal place of business. If there is no place of business (eg for a small local voluntary body), you should provide the address of the official who has completed the form." As a limited company they are not complying and are in breach of the notification rules. They should not be processing your (or my) data. This is their Companies House registered address: FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND RECOVERIES (EUROPE) LIMITED UNIT 5 MITCHELL COURT CASTLE MOUND WAY CENTRAL PARK RUGBY WARWICKSHIRE CV23 0UYPrevious Names: Date of change Previous Name 05/05/2000 GOLDENBRIGHT LIMITED 14/03/2005 KINGS HILL (NO.2) LIMITED Write to the ICO and complain. Then tell FIRE that any data they have dealt with was processed unlawfully so you can't talk to them.

How do you speak to Experian? In words of one syllable and very slowly, just like when speaking to DCAs.

I know from very (very) personal experience that adverse entries on your credit file will not disbar you from working in financial services, even in an 'approved person' capacity (ie employed or self employed Financial / mortgage Adviser). Even very recent ones properly explained are acceptable. It all comes down to the company's and FSA's perception of you. If the one adverse item on your report is a £150 default, you've got absolutely nothing to worry about (I know)! Especially as you were open and up front about it. Also remember that unsecured debt records go back 6 years but secured loans (on property) go back 12 years. And if you had a loan with a bank I bet they keep records for their own use that go back longer than that (I would). Have you also conducted statutory checks with all the CRAs? Doing it with just one of them is not enough. I would consider conducting an SAR against RBS (their data controller that is), then they would have to divulge anything they had on you. I don't mean to insult your intelligence but have you checked the CIFAS section at the bottom of your credit report? Also, without being too PC, is there any other (racial or religious) reason that you can think of that would encourage them to hide behind an erroneous credit report to stop them hiring you? Just askin'. Remember they are trying to sell off over 300 branches. Last point I would make is that you are obviously employable, go to another bank (or any other company) and see what they say. Don't just hang your coat on the RBS peg.

On the face of it I would say your solicitor has just bowed to his legal 'betters' in this, at your expense. BUT I am not a solicitor so am not able to give qualified comment. In purely technical terms (as in most cases of this sort) you seem to have a very strong case, but the people in the courts are just humans trying to get to what THEY see as an equitable solution. Any action you bring must be seen in this light. It is your (£20k) money so I have to bottle out of the question I'm afraid.

I have seen off many a DCA, it has cost me nothing more than the statutory CCA and SAR request fees. Take some time out to read around the forums and search for the name of the DCA chasing you. Once you've done that for a few hours you will be amazed at how empowered you feel! My advice? Don't pay someone else, DIY!!

This has been the case with some cards for some time now. They want you to be in debt, otherwise they may have to start paying interest to the card holders for positive balances. It also costs them more to administer cards with less than a few hundred quid in debt on them. This move also discourages those awful people that pay off their balances at the end of the month so earning the CC companies virtually nothing.

Jadgee is absolutely right about the danger of getting a CIFAS entry on a credit report. This was introduced relatively recently to encourage people to be totally honest about their position. "CIFAS enables Members to exchange details of applications for products, services or employment, which are considered to be fraudulent, because the information provided by the applicant fails verification checks." Welcome to CIFAS Online - CIFAS Online Big Brother has extended his empire! Beware! All I can say is that people should use the law as it is written and not try to bend it to their advantage. Stick to the basic CCA advice on this site and recover your life - but it will take time. Going beyond that and you could end up with more pain.

One point to bear in mind is, that if you with hold payments they will frazzle your credit rating for a minimum of six years whether or not the debt is enforcable. The CCA 1974 is not a magic wand that wishes debt away.

Apologies, I was concentrating more on the 'unenfocability' issue. As far as I can see 'enforcement' occurs once a judgement has been obtained in the courts. Enforcement is the subsequent actions of the courts and bailiffs to make sure the debt is repaid in accordance with the court's decision. So the actions of a creditor reporting to the CRAs is not enforcement, it is merely information on which other lenders may or may not act in deciding an individual's credit worthiness. As we all know, generally, DCAs have absolutely no powers without a court order, so in the same way actions and demands by a DCA cannot be construed as enforcement. To put it in a more realistic light these actions could be interpreted as pressure, but not enforcement in the legal meaning. I have been the subject of much DCA bluster or 'pressure' (Me 6 v. DCAs 0) over the last six years but have managed to beat them all off just by sticking to the CCA basics. But I have always accepted that there are limits. Always consider that there are two basic streams to UK law, statute and equity. In equity every debt is enforcable, but statute gets in the way (CCA 1974 for example). So trying to bend the law to your own advantage is not looked on kindly by the civil courts. The courts are going to try and enforce a debt by equitable means unless statute gets in the way. It gets in the way with regard to agreements, but not where reporting to CRAs is concerned. My advice is to stick to the basics, use the advice on this site but don't expect a magic wand to rid you of nasty letters and CRAs wrecking your ratings. Sorry, but that's just my view.

That doesn't seem to be The Hon Mr Justice Flaux's view in the Approved Judgment "19. In other words, this is a case of temporary or redeemable unenforceability, concerned only with section 77 of the Act. In that respect it differs from two other factual scenarios where unenforceability can be said to be permanent or irredeemable1: (i) where the agreement is improperly executed, so that by virtue of section 65(1) of the Act, the agreement is only enforceable on an order of the court and, in the exercise of its discretion under section 127(1) the court declines to make an enforcement order and (ii) the case again under section 65(1) where section 61(1) (a) has not been complied with and by virtue of section 127(3), the court has no power to make an enforcement order (and the similar provision under section 127(4) where section 64 has not been complied with). Sections 127(3) and (4) were repealed by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, but only prospectively in respect of agreements made after 6 April 2007. As Mr Moran points out, there are a large number of regulated consumer credit agreements extant made before that date." http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mcguffick-v-rbs.pdf

Could have had a lot to do with editorial input too.

Don't get confused between the number of years your data can be retained as opposed to how many years of data is displayed on your record. the two are not the same. People can keep your data whist they have a legitimate reason to process it. That decision is their's unless for example a court or the Information Commissioner decide otherwise. Most companies will keep data for the six years after the contract was ended but in the case of debt if the lender or DCA says 'we want you to retain it as we haven't finished with it' then the CRA will keep it. But they won't display it on your record after the 6 year time limit. Also remember that debt secured on land can be chased for 12 years, not the 6 as for unsecured debt. I would take a bet that if the government decreed in Monday that all credit records must show a 12 year history the data would magically appear from the archives at the flick of a software button. Conversely, if they decreed a 3 year history the years 3-6 would disappear from your record BUT the data would still be held 'just in case'.

Found this: The recent decision by the OFT fails us all The Economic Voice

It seems that the courts as well as the banks disagree with the current law and will try, via a succession of 'salami slices', to try and gradually change the interpretation of the law. So, as LTWFB says maybe the best route now is a frontal attack. But what many people in the country still do not realise is that, without the law as it stands, the banks could basically write their own cheques, with the full backing of the law courts. Their word (or the word of any random bank teller) would rank above that of absolutely anyone else. It is actually in every consumer's interest that the requirement to provide the correct paperwork is totally enforced. I would go further and say that a CRA should only be able to amend a record until the correct paperwork is produced. And then no court should be able to take action unless the CRA has reflected the case correctly. Then, the original paperwork MUST be priduced in court. This will not only tighten up lending practices but also free up court time (but remember the banks want lax lending and the courts and lawyers like to be kept busy, good for the bank balance. They also like ambiguity, which takes up so much time and pays so well). So, is it any wonder where this all seems to be going?

If it is not your fault then why should you have to accept any adverse report on your credit file? Seems to me you should fight to have a clear record.

I actually sent a very to the point and hard letter to let them know that I am aware of exactly what they are up to. My worry is that the lenders/DCAs are lining up for a massive assault on the law in the next year or so with a war of attrition. They have managed to push the envelope bit by bit. They have successfully dismantled the bank charges problem and may now try to twist the CCA 1974 in the same way. I know that the statute is the statute, but so far none of this has carried much weight except in some individual cases. The OFT and TS are there for the banks and government (otherwise CAG would be their first recommendation). Both organisations time after time have been proved wanting as far as the consumer is concerned. Look, the OFT as far as I am concerned knowingly pursued the wrong legal path to chase the banks. They can now say they've 'done their bit' and give up. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew exactly where it would end up! Until, like most people in CAG, you have glimpsed the belly of the beast most people do not know the sort of organisations they are dealing with. In cahoots with the government the idea is to rip as much money from the public as possible to line their own pockets. But how do you put this across to the general public who so sadly trust the banks and believe that they look after them? (Oh yes they do!) In the cold light of day a lot of the activity that lenders and DCAs indulge in would be considered as fraud. Remember, the only proof that you owe someone money who calls you and says you owe them that money, is for them to present you with a properly executed agreement. To present anything else to you for pecuniary advantage would, in any other theatre of life, rightly be called fraudulent activity and be punished accordingly. Why is that so difficult for the courts, OFT and TS to work out unless they are instructed to find otherwise? Our representatives, that is the Members of Parliament, passed the CCA 1974. This was accepted in full by the House of Lords and signed by the monarch so becoming the law of the land. It is the law! Do not lose sight of that fact and do not let anyone else do so either. Or what is next?

Hi, Wonder if anyone else has had a letter recently from Cabot saying "thanks for your recent payment, and we'll be charging interest on the rest"? But I have of course made no such payment! I can only think that they are trying to re-start the statute barring clock, or if I don't reply show that I've somehow acknowledged the debt. I cannot believe this devious bunch have made a simple error.

Hi Marcus, it's not the date that you signed the agreement that statute barring is based upon, it's the last time you acknowledged the debt in writing or made a payment towards it that matters.