Those of suspicious minds (guilty, I'm afraid) might conclude the reason for setting up a separate entity for collection might be because if that entity has little or no assets in the case it was ever sued, and could also be wound up quickly and then replaced with another collection entity. Of course there might be other innocent reasons.

Below offered in good faith only. I have sent several similar ones over the years... Shoestring ** Dear Blah Blah, You say that I owe (£ said amount) in regard to my BT contract. I dispute that I have any such debt. Nor have I entered into any contractual agreement with BT whatsoever. Accordingly, I now insist that you provide either a signed contract bearing my signature, or an unexpurgated copy of the actual telephone recording between myself and BT that amounts to a binding contract (a written transcript is not acceptable. Kindly note that if you are unable to provide either of these proofs, and continue to call or write to me with unverifiable demands, I will lodge an official complaint with the police against your company for harassment. This letter is sent under recorded delivery to ensure receipt. I look forward to your urgent reply, signed by an authorized signatory of your company, formally responding to this matter. Sincerely,

You will need the expertise of others here on the legal issue, but I believe that in law, there is no longer a need for a signed contract as agreements reached over the phone now qualify. That is why I say you should insist on getting them to provide a copy of the original telephone recording between you and BT (not a transcript as it can be easily meddled with). If Moorcroft or BT cannot provide this as a minimum, then (in my reading) they have no sustainable claim whatsoever.

Collection agents typically come at you fists flying. They do this on the basis that intimidation coerces many people to settle straight off the bat. The thought of going to court is too unsettling. But what you're doing is correct. Force them to prove that the debt is, in fact, owed. Typically they will ignore phone calls so don't you make them. Write to them by recorded delivery and note that you have used recorded deliver in your letter. Say you dispute the amount and insist they provide the proof. Shoestring

Good news. Perhaps they should also now adopt ethical business practices and drop the wholesale pirating and plundering method of doing busness? Shoestring

That they do this I don't doubt - that it is lawful I do seriously doubt. Both parties to a contract must agree to the terms otherwise there's no lawful contract (as understand it). Get the original phone recordings from BT (not a transcript), or at least insist they reserve them in safe keeping as evidence for Otelo.

Damned pity that senior Barclays execs are only going to receive a minimum of £15 million in bonuses each, because of these poor results. It's tough at the top, eh. Barclays' £7bn bank 'robbery' | the Daily Mail Barclays' £7bn bank 'robbery' Last updated at 13:49pm on 20th February 2007 Comments (28) Profits at Barclays shot up by more than a third to a record £7.1 billion last year, it was announced today. The figure was far higher than forecast and triggered a storm of protest from consumer groups and politicians. Read more... • Bank chief predicts the end of the free bank account • Banks under siege as 300,000 join campaign to refund bank charges • Single mum wins back £23,000 in bank charges for friends and family • Special Report: The end of free banking? • Today's news headlines The 2006 result showed the high street arm of Britain's third biggest bank made £86 profit for each of its 14 million UK customers. And it means Barclays directors are in line for bonuses of at least £15 million. The profits were today condemned as " daylight robbery" by Eddy Weatherill, chief executive-of the Independent Banking Advisory Service. He said: "It's a complete stitch-up. They are the new highwaymen. "The banks are having a heyday and they will continue to do so while customers sit still and don't look at what is being offered elsewhere." The announcement comes ahead of a key report from the Office of Fair Trading into high bank charges, which many customers claim are illegal. However, Barclays chief executive John Varley said free banking was not under threat - contradicting comments from the head of Nationwide last night. Mr Varley also revealed a big increase in bad debts to £2.15 billion, as tens of thousands of customers struggle with spiralling credit card debts and loans. However, he insisted the worst of the "debt crisis" at Barclaycard was over, saying: "The number of customers missing a payment is falling. Arrears balances are also falling." But critics said the vast profits, equivalent to the gross domestic product in Jamaica, revealed how customers were being ripped off. Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said: "These enormous profits highlight the raw deal UK consumers are getting from banks. "The Government's failure to get to grips with the banking sector means that while banks boost their profits, many customers are getting deeper and deeper into debt." There was also criticism of the "underhand" charges levied on customers who go above their overdraft limit. Nick White, director of financial services at price comparison website uSwitch.com, said: "Consumers really need to keep a close eye on the sneaky changes made by their bank, more now than ever before." Barclays is the first of the big five high street banks to report its profits. Its top boardroom pay-out will go to Bob Diamond, head of the hugely successful investment banking arm Barclays Capital. However, Mr Varley defended the profits, saying they benefited pension funds and allowed the bank to support "thousands" of community projects around the world.

A hitla, what memories your post ignited. Being repeatedly asked to phone them (at my cost of curse) and them completely ignoring my demand they call me if they want to sort out their error. In my case, months after canceling the service in writing (and canceling the DD with the bank in writing!) and then having the bank account details changed for other reasons (not connected to them), I discovered that they were still debiting the account on a monthly basis. The question that leapt to mind was how on earth did they get the new bank account details? It was the same bank but different details... There was only one possibility -- the bank had provided the information to them. Letter after letter to the bank, dozens of emails to and from the ISP covering a period of well over a year eventually resulted in a full refund from the bank (but only after I wrote to the head man in their Inspectorate Dept). I was so incensed I compiled a full file took it to the police and lodged a formal complaint of fraud. The police wrote to the ISP. The ISP didn't bother to answer them and so our beloved boys in blue simply shrugged their shoulders and dropped the investigation. What a world.

I reccomend you contact OTHELO and ask them for advice on how best to proceed. There is an established procedure you must follow before OTHLO will accept a complaint from you and do anything about it. At the very minimum there should be a seriously grovelling apology and, I shouldn't wonder, some form of recompense. But it will take a lot of time, and many people flake out along the way. Which they count on them doing, obviously (imo). Shoestring

Well guys, be careful. What they say on the ol' phone and what they do isn't always the same thing. BT people lie on a daily basis and/or are to lazy to do the things they say they will (in my opinion, of course ). If it works out for you fine, if not know that you have been forewarned -- and thus forearmed. Shostring

The difference is, I think, more subtle than that cashins. The individual/small businessman is fair game. Big business and the transnationals call the shots at the government level and this then trickles down the greasy pole until it hits a lowly unit like the OFT who, deep down (at the upper levels of that lowly unit), know that what they were formed for was PR and spin -- to create the illusion that there is regulation across the board when, in fact, it is selective. If anyone bothered to conduct an independent and in-depth study of this, I am sure these finding would spring out at one like a captive, trained dolphin leaping for a fishy snack from its trainers hand. Shoestring

Ask them to provide the Contract that they say you agreed to. Either a written one with your signature or a verbal one in which case they must provide a copy of the telephone recording.... Nothing BT say or claim can be accepted at face value. Every item needs fact checking. AS you say, on your bike.... Shoestring

Glad it helped. Note again it is my suggestions only and forgive the numerous spelling mistakes. Gawd knows why but my fingers are all wobbly today... Shoestring

Here here, Gez. Let's not forget for a second that OFT are a government entity. It is not an unusual tactic in controversial and emotive subjects (as this case surely is) to have the bods in grey suits think up a gig in order to vent steam, earth the otherwise dangerous lightening and to create the impression that he government is a listening caring beast when, in fact, it is only ever interested in lining pockets and doing as it was elected to do -- support business and moneyed interests. I have been suspicious of the OFT from day one when I spoke to them by phone about a non-banking issue. [edit] And I speak from experience because I can remember back when Trading Standards/Weights & Measures really did have teeth and commerce cowed before them. A phone call from them to a commercial enterprise was all it took to cause a tug of the forelock, a yes sir, no sir and a full refund (plus I might add, the travel costs of returning to said enterprise said faulty goods in exchange for said cash). That all changed with the "the market will regulate itself" heistfest of Margaret Thatcher and her con crooks. Cest la vie and que serah, eh.

Excellent news! Saves me the hassle of doing it (wuz waiting for the statement from the OFT later this month before commencing). Shoestring

Ofcom do not have a duty to help. They always decline to help individuals and are about as much use as a wet chocolate matchbox. Otelo can be contacted by phone and they will tell you the steps you need to take with BT before they will become involved. They will only become involved after these steps are followed to the letter. It is a fairly long drawn out business too. The fact is that regulators are, by the terms of their creation, balanced in favour of the telecom industry and not the individual.

Several things leap out at me. The first of these is the moral of the story (not that you are to blame for not knowing this) but NEVER trust BT over the phone or by email. They lie and cheat like billy-o. The following are suggestions only, but are based on some years and a number of personal experiences. Always put your complaint in writing, mailed by recorded delivery, addressed to the Complaint Review Unit at the main Durham address. By the sound of it it is still not too late to send of a letter double quick setting out calmly, precisely and objectively al that has happened (I assume you have logs of the calls you made to them etc?). Send a copy of this letter to Otelo for their information and records (and note that you have done this on the original copy to BT). If you are contacted by a collection agency by phone, simply say that they will need to contact you in writing and insist that someone who is dl authorised to sign n behalf of said company actually does sign all and every letter. I doubt they will do either willingly. If they phone again repeat what you said earlier and caution them that any future telephone call will be regarded as harassment and that the police will be notified (and do make a formal complaint to the police in writing with a copy letter to said collection agency if they ever ring again). With the first letter you receive from a collection agency (if that transpires) immediately reply in writing, by recorded delivery (note that in the letter that it is sent by recorded delivery, too) that you are in the process of a dispute with BT about illegal selling etc. Note that this matter has alo been brought to the attention of Otelo also. Tel them that you look forward to any court action as an opportunity to state your case. Also insist (in writing to BT) that they secure copies of al telephone recordings betwee you and themselves for evidentiary reasons. Ask them to provide you with copies of all these telephone conversations --- not, I repeat, not transcripts but the actual recordings themselves --- and fact check them for dates, times and contents. Dates and times will be available from your BT bill. Cross reference the Bill details to whatever might be sent (they may ask for a charge for sending the recordings?) to ensure that there is an accurate tape of each and ever recording. There are myriad ways in which BT (and collection agencies) will try to deceive you or pressure you to settle. Disbelieve everything as a mater of course. Always remember that you are not dealing with honourable or fair or honest people. In my opinion, BT often engage in unlawful acts. Don't let the [problematic] win! Shoestring PS: if it were me I wouldn't pay them a penny let alone the seventy quid. My experiences with CAB are also not outstanding, I have to say, and so I would be cautious with them...

Sorry to mildly disagree. Just a wee bit, anyway. Prime Ministers don't get to be Prime Ministers cuz the pubic voted them there. They get to Prime Ministers because a confluence of moneyed and political forces put them there to serve their interests. Note: not the interests of the citizens of this nation. Democracy as we know it today is not in the least bit representative in terms of the implied meaning of that word. Decades ago it was described by the then Master of the Rolls as an "elective dictatorship" that definition holds good up to the point of the word "elective". When the bare minimum choices of voting a representative into power (via a part machine) are as designedly inhibited as they are, then it is not so much an "elective" dictatorship as an "appointed" dictatorship. Know and understand the actualite and not the smoke and mirrors we're fed since birth, I say.

Badger, my unfortunate experience - described above - with missing emails was with a very well known British ISP. If they can loose all their records in a fraud situation and completely and utterly get away with it, what chance do we stand with other business sectors...

I seriously doubt that the charges are lawful! Whatever the slanted spin offered by the TSI. The Trading Standards Institute is a private professional association and more of a lobby outfit than a consumer protection entity. It was formerly known as the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. Its website states" "it exists to promote and protect the success of a modern vibrant economy, and to safeguard the health, safety and wellbeing of citizens by enhancing the professionalism of members in support of empowering consumers, encouraging honest business and targeting rogue traders." Sorry to rock your leaking boat lawbunny, but I'd be a lot happier if it existed to "protect the citizen consumer from a rapacious and de facto unregulated business sector" than to ensure the success of a modern vibrant economy. After all, it is the modern vibrant economy that is shafting us all stupid everyday, isn't it. It also clearly has no regulatory function or muscle as it only seeks to "encourage" business to be honest. Mmmm. "Let me see", said the business sector CEO, "shall I bow to encouragement to trade honestly (barely suppressing a smirk) -- or shall I work hard towards achieving a bonanza year end bonus/profit share, along with a hike in my remuneration package from my current £15 mill-a-year to £17.5 mill". Mmmm. "It's a difficult moral dilemma", said the CEO's Chairman. "allow me to offer one or two thoughts" the Chairman said scratching his ear with sagely concentration. "If you decide to do the honourable thing - and I can understand the naive attraction of honest dealing (barely able to suppress a smirk)..." the chairman shifted in his leather armchair and took a slow deliberate sip from his crystal cognac bowl, openly luxuriating in the divine scent of the large measure of Hennessy Ellipse residing there. "If you do do the honest thing, your Board, your shareholders and I shall remove you from your position within 72 hours". So much for encouragement... I know! Let's instead change the law of the land to "encourage" the greedy buggers running the modern vibrant economy to do the right thing or face several years looking through prison bars - getting high on bad dope smuggled in by prison guards, running from the rape-intent muscle bitches - and wishing they'd been sufficiently encouraged before all their personal assets were also seized. With that scenario in play I'm absolutely certain that most - not all - of those vibrant economy types would be positively hopping and skipping towards encouragement centres to learn how to be socially responsible. Short of that touch your wallet everyday to see how it magically shrinks before your very eyes. Shoestring PS, the foregoing is freely offered as a reality check from someone who knows precisely how the vibrant business economy types actually think. It is farcical to pretend anything less. Bollocks to the weasel words of TSI. Test the interpretation of the law in court and don't be bowed by others calls to economic vibrancy.

The logic of your argument is flawless. This why I sometimes argue that it is not your money at all but actually belongs to the banks, who allow you limited access to ensure it keeps moving around. I also argue, quite strongly, that their is a hidden purpose behind the foisting of the DD system on us all by default. This is because it was decided years ago that all money would become electronic. G7 governments favour this, I believe, as it will immediately restrict the earning of "black money" and that, as a result, government revenues will increase almost overnight. Business likes it because it reduces their costs and increases the the myriad ways in which they can engineer additional profit streams (as we al know to our cost). The security services love it as they will be easily able to track all money movements without the least hassle. The ONLY loser is the individual. As always. Artfully robbed at every turn with the added loss of independence. Not a pleasant formulae...

Some really very interesting info in this thread. I consider Ofcom to be about as useful as a pair of bollocks on a mushroom. I absolutely do not consider them to be balanced or fair but rather believe them to favour business not the customer. I have long held a similar opinion about OFT but am beginning to reconsider in the light of the bank charges case plus the ThisIsMoney article above. But only time will tell if they are truly behind the customer or simply a lightening rod to earth anger when it irrupts. Most interesting post by davefirewalker that BT do not charge VAT on the £4.50 penalty fee (yes, I insist it is a penalty fee and not a processing charge), which, if true, would completely crumble their case. Also, don't they have to show that their cost of processing payments is actually the amount they charge and that not a penny of profit is included - for it to be lawful and not a penalty fee, which IS unlawful? The above referenced article about the OFT view is also instructive from a contract law case. It is my understanding that for any changes in the contract to be lawful, I must accept them? (legal seagulls please jump in here...). I further understand that my agreement is assumed unless I disagree in writing -- which I have done many times since this penalty fee was introduced. Ergo the "new" contractual terms cannot be binding because I have and continue to dispute them --- there is no contract in force. Assuming this is correct, this has led me to consider that since BT has continued to provide a service, despite my written disagreement and repeated refusal to pay, they by virtue of contract law must be considered to have accepted my amendment to the offered terms? I am probably being hopeful on this angle, but thoughts anyone?

Back to the Future maybe...

Invest in two or three of the top bank stocks...HSBC, Barclays etc. You know that the government will NEVER low them to fail. -- and will use your money to support them... might as well channel some of your tax pounds back into your own pockets, I say.

I appreciate what you say. However, two thoughts occur. Firstly, sending an email to a corporation often requires that one use the company's webform to do so, and keeping a record of this is not very easy for most. Secondly, emails, like telephone calls, have a habit of getting lost (I am speaking from experience here -- even to the extent of once spending ten quid to obtain all computer emails exchanged between myself and a certain company. Every one of over 40 messages had vanished due to an error. Whoosh! Gone in the blink of a delete key. This formed part of a thick file I had amassed that had been ongoing for two years. This file was eventually handed over to the police with an official complaint of fraud. The police wrote to the company in question. The company in question did not bother replying to the police and the latter merely shrugged their shoulders as if to say "what can we do?" These and other similar experiences (I'm an old timer at this now) have shown me the need to take exceptional care when registering a complaint Do it slowly, methodically and in writing with proof of sending. Anything else will be treated as trash for the bin. Shoestring