As above, you're entitled to your opinion Buzby. Forum - open public debate. Points have been put across, you've had your say. All I can say is that I've personally seen a photoshop job pulled on someone, so I don't consider it paranoia but rather prudent observation.

I never send a signature because it is not unknown for unscrupulous companies to adopt modern technology to cut/copy/paste such onto other letters/documents in order to appear as restarting stat barred clock etc.

Buzby they do need to satisfy themselves as to the ID of the person making a request but this does NOT need to be a signature!!!!! You can prove your identity in numerous other ways and I wouldn't trust a DCA with my signature for love nor money!!! There is NOTHING that says that for a cca request they need your signature specifically and any person is within their right to not wish to divulge such to any company they fear, for whatever reason, may be less than reputable!!! UF

Hang on are you saying the last time you made a payment was 1995??

Don't forget to mention Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 Cheers UF

I wouldn't send it until you're certain the debt would be stat barred. I'd at least wait until I got the reply from cca request and assess the situation at that point. That's just me, though. Cheers UF EDIT Sorry I was talking about a statute barred letter. Definitely send the account in dispute letter as you're intending.

They should notify you but very rarely do. Send the CCA request to whatever DCA is chasing you. Don't sign the request, you're under no obligation to do so. If you want to put something there, then use a digital signature. As said above, kind of stupid since the DCA will only go back to the OC anyway, but that's the way the game works. You might get some guff back about them requiring a signature to confirm who you are, but they have no right to demand a signature specifically. You can satisfy the identity requirements in many, many other ways. I've had the exact same argument with DCA's and OC's many times in the past and we've always got our way in the end and proved identity with other means or they've just given up and provided the requested information without a signature or any other evidence. Cheers UF

Entirely agree. The harassment suits going to court, I would guess, are not generally against big companies and, again I should guess, for the very reason you've outlines above.... Cheers UF

Didn't think you were getting at me Rebel..... it does seem that some people have a small fried potato snack resting at the top of their arms, so to speak. You're absolutely right, there must be dozens of harassment suits each year but we only see Ferguson because it reached a superior court and was reported. But the vast majority of cases are not reported and this is what people can't understand.... the vast majority of cases just plod along in the background!! Similarly I'm certain that there have been prosecutions under S127 Communications Act other than the one I posted earlier. I'm in the process of getting details from the CPS. Cheers. UF

Hi Kerravon, I think you're quite right that most DCA's won't be up to date BUT we should be!!! Only by being up to date and getting the law right can we maintain stature and actually make a difference. In my opinion, if we continue using outdated legislation / case law etc etc then we simply make ourselves look bad and people/businesses and even the courts won't take us as seriously as they should. Cheers. UF

Hi nicklea, thanks for the response. Yeah I'm aware of the warnings there.... but you know how it is when you're just looking at something in a particular hurry.... So easy to miss things etc But yes, you're quite right definitely. To be honest I've all but stopped using the Government statute websites because of the massive delays in updating them. I find that the commercial sites are updated more often and are generally more reliable and easier to get around so I'm sticking to them, really. Cheers. UF

Also, my last two posts were aimed at Buzby, not you, just in case there was any confusion. Because although you've quoted Buzby, the fact that you've quoted a case that only I have posted in this thread, it kind of looks like a dig at me instead of the person you're actually having a disagreement with (I think). Cheers UF

Hi Rebel.... sorry but Buzby DIDN'T post that case let alone the citation.... he thought of some non-existent case called "Richardson v British Gas"... UF

Jasper please see the following link, S40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 is NOT RELEVANT any more!!!! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?287720-S40-Administration-of-Justice-Act-1970-irrelevant-to-this-forum-in-almost-all-circumstances-use-CPUTR-s-instead!!&p=3233627#post3233627

Also, since you've rather superciliously made reference to reading law, may I suggest that you try it in future, as I assume the case that you were trying to refer to was Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 not Richardson. If I'm right then that case had nothing to do with S127 Communications Act. It was a civil case brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. You're right though, they did win. Also, again since you seem to be aiming to offend people today, perhaps you could read some case law because although "harassment" may not have been given a clear meaning in the Protection from Harassment Act, it sure as hell has been examined in some detail by superior English courts - it was even examined in Ferguson v British Gas, to some extent!!!! UF

If it is a fake then I would personally make a complaint to the police if I were in the same position. Cheers UF

Director of Public Prosecutions v Collins [2006] 1 W.L.R. 2223 Different subsection, but still a S127 criminal offence case...... Nobody is telling anybody to take an action against a company under S127, however pointing out the section to the company is prudent. Also you are still overlooking the glaringly obvious fact that the company are looking for the OP and yet phoning the OP's mother on a totally unconnected telephone line and at a totally unconnected address. In my opinion, reminding the company of S127 is sensible and, if the calls continue, then a complaint the the police would be sensible, also. UF ** Also as far as I'm aware, it's not just the regulator that can take action. As seen by the above case that was taken by the DPP.

Just a guess, but if the form you've received is a "fake" and is designed specifically to look like a claim form, then could the following not apply: Fraud Act 2006 Fraud S2 Fraud by false representation (1) A person is in breach of this section if he– (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation– (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if– (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. (3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of– (a) the person making the representation, or (b) any other person. (4) A representation may be express or implied. (5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention). Could it not be said that sending someone a "fake" claim form would be a misrepresentation of fact - namely the fact that court proceedings had been issued? If so, then undoubtedly a fraud?? Cheers UF

Come on let us at least try and keep things civil?? Buzby, you haven't really explained in any way why you think S127 wouldn't apply, unless you've done it in another thread? In which case I'd appreciate a link?? If not then perhaps instead of just stating your opinion and abusing the site team, you could explain your opinion as I suggested earlier and then we could possibly have some discussion on the topic and try to be productive....?? UF

No problem rebel, my pleasure. Buzby, I really can't see your logic regarding S127 Communications Act.... perhaps to save the OP's thread here from being taken over with such a debate, you could outline the reasons for your belief in a new thread so that an open debate may be had?? On the face of it, I have to say I'm inclined to disagree with you although I have to be honest and say I've only done limited reading on the subject, it seems to me on the face of it to be clear that repeatedly telephoning for someone on the wrong number could amount to an offence contrary to S127. If you would post your reasons in a new thread, I would be glad to have an open forum discussion and I'm sure many other members would also be so inclined. Cheers UF

Exactly, HS. That's my concern really.... I have to say I was caught out earlier in the year during the debate mentioned in the first post in this thread. I hadn't read the AJA '70 for some time, except a quick peek on statutelaw.gov.uk and that site (worryingly, given it's a .gov.uk) didn't make any mention of S40 not applying. It was only when I looked on Westlaw that I saw the amendment. Cheers UF

Please Tanz do not quote S40 Administration of Justice Act - it does not apply!! See http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?287720-S40-Administration-of-Justice-Act-1970-irrelevant-to-this-forum-in-almost-all-circumstances-use-CPUTR-s-instead!!(4-Viewing)-nbsp for details. That link will also show you the correct part of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations to quote. Cheers UF

Good afternoon fellow caggers.... some months ago, it was brought to my attention through a debate with another member (can't remember which one, but I should like to say thank you to that member and acknowledge their input) that S40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 NO LONGER APPLIES to activity taken by a company and is a commercial practice as defined by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. See below: S40.— Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors. (1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he— (a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation; (b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it; © falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or (d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not. (2) A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment. (3) Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose— (a) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or (b) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process. (3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice. I am aware that, worryingly, the above amendment is still not showing on the statutelaw.gov.uk database or opsi.gov.uk / legislation.gov.uk however S40(3A) was added by Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008/1277 Sch.2(1) para.13. On this basis, caggers really should stop using this now outdated approach and instead include the correct and relevant law - namely the CPUTR: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008/1277 Schedule 1 Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair 26. Making persistent and unwanted solicitations by telephone, fax, e-mail or other remote media except in circumstances and to the extent justified to enforce a contractual obligation. I thought, given that we're still seeing S40 AJA 1970 quoted in a number of letters being sent out by caggers, that this thread may highlight the error and allow members to use the correct legislation in future. Cheers UF

Given the debate that was had between myself and another member (can't remember which one) a few months ago and the conclusion that, without doubt, S40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 now does not apply in cases where a company is attempting to collect debts, why are we still telling people to include it in letters?? It just makes us look stupid and reduces the influence we can have.... Definitely do email them but remove the ref to AJA 1970 and include, instead, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. The CPUTR's state the persistent telephone calls are unfair trading except to the extent that they are necessary to ensure a party to a contract fulfils their obligations thereunder. On the basis that the OP's relative doesn't have a contract with them and the telephone line is (presumably) hers and hers alone.... this would be unfair. Finally, given that I entirely agree that the behaviour here should be considered harrassment I would be phoning the police (non-emergency number).... they WILL try and fob you off telling you that it is a civil matter but you should politely but firmly insist that they take and act upon your complaint and firmly remind them that such behaviour is, if it constitutes harassment, a CRIMINAL OFFENCE. At the end of the day, as much as the police in this country like to bury their heads, play dumb and pretend that they don't deal with these issues... their job is to enforce the law, protect the public and pursue criminals. Therefore they have a duty to investigate and act upon the complaint. Santander are full of xxxx, their suspicion that you are there means sweet FA and is no reason for them to interfere with your relatives telephone line and harass her in any way, shape or form. All the best UF

Hi all, I'm having to go to court in relation to a parking ticket. A brief history is as follows: 1) Received a Penalty Charge Notice in early August. 2) Paid the above Penalty Charge Notice within 2 weeks at the reduced rate. 3) In September, received a Charge Certificate in relation to a Penalty Charge Notice at the same location. It turned out that this Charge Certificate was actually in relation to a DIFFERENT PCN, one which I DID NOT RECEIVE. 4) Had court forms come through and had to issue a Witness Statement. I filled in, signed and then emailed the Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre in Northampton, as per the instructions. This was done at the end of October. 5) Found out a few weeks ago that for some reason the Northampton County Court (TEC) had failed to do ANYTHING with my witness statement and so a Warrant had been issued against me. 6) I filled out and filed the form application to submit a witness statement out of time along with a new witness statement. 7) Yesterday, I got an order from the Court Officer at Northampton (TEC) that the application was refused. I WAS EXPECTING THIS!! I'M YET TO COME ACROSS A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THE COURT OFFICER THERE ACTUALLY GRANTING AN APPLICATION!! 8 ) SO now.... I have to file the N244 and accompanying witness statement etc with the TEC with the relevant fee and have the matter transfered to my local court for a hearing with the District Judge. So this is where I could do with some advice etc etc etc just to try and make sure I get everything right. I've been writing up all the stuff that I need to submit and I wonder if people here with more experience (I've only had to do this a couple of times, never in relation to parking and never where a case has to be transferred to a different court!) could look and offer any advice etc. Specifically I have the following question that I could really do with answers to: 1) At the top of the following documents, should I put "Northampton County Court" or should I put my local court where I want the case to be transferred to? What I written is as follows: Witness Statement: Draft Order: Any advice and / or guidance would be really very gratefully received, as the clock is ticking and I really need to be getting this stuff sorted and sent off if I am going to get it to the court in time. Many thanks UF