The exclusions noted (the stuff that needn't be on a true copy) seems about right. Because you have a history of paying this I think you might be a bit stuck. Not sure the dispute angle (on the grounds of a cca) will fly. Courts have been known to infer that there was an agreement (and therefore liability for the debt) based on the balance of probabilities; generally because they think that if you've been paying for x amount of time the debt must be yours, irrespective of whether the creditor can produce the actual agreement.

Worth noting that it isn't an offence anymore. Not sure it it useful to advertise to a DCA that you aren't clear on the law.

Interesting queries. I would interpret the default notice as simply that; notice that there has been a default and that therefore the cause of action has arisen. Whether or not there is notice of this does not alter whether there has been a cause of action. The cause of action is when the term(s) of the contract have been breached. The default notice is an information document and a procedural step necessary before the breach can be acted on. I think that this would be the case as the cause of action is a breach of contract. There is no cause of action until the contract has been breached. This said I'm not aware of many contract draftsmen that would frame a contract in this way. The nearest equivalent is perhaps the student loans scheme and in this case the loan becomes due unless you defer it, but then this is still complying with the terms of the contract and hence no breach. I would clarify that to say that the limitation period does not start until there has been a breach of contract.

Although enforcement by a warrant of execution requires the court's permission after six years. They don't expire per-se, but the claimant must persuade a court that it should be enforced. Doesn't apply, as far as I know to non-execution type enforcement, for eg a garneshee order as this is an order made by the court at the time, not an order which then needs enforcing, if that makes sense. Regarding acknowledging the debt, this must be in writing or by making a payment.

was the loan specifically for the course? If it was and it was a regulated agreement then s75 of the cca might apply. Not really enough info to comment specifically. Something to look into.

I don't beleive that this is entirely correct. The AJA was amended by the Consumer Protection Regs and this was removed. S40 now no longer applies to anything done that is a commercial practice (as defined by the cprs) This means that harrassment law is now in the CPRs and the Protection From Harrassment Act '97, s3 I think. The PHA '97 goves both civil and criminal remedies, but it is fairly hard to make the criminal bit fly. As per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead the courts will have in mind that irritations, annoyances, even a measure of upset, arise at times in everybody's day-to-day dealings with other people. Criminally, there needs to be two courses of conduct. The CPRs also have the problem that the conduct or harassment must significantly impair, or is likely to significantly impair the average consumer's decision to take a 'transactional decision' that they might not have taken otherwise. Pressure to pay I suppose. CPRs also criminal I beleive so not much use for civil stuff unless you want to get... creative... So, civil wise, an application for an injunction to prevent the contact, based on PfHA, is perhaps best bet. If they then break it, mucho fun to be had.

isn't that something to do with btl mortgages? I'm sure there was a post around here somewhere about a case to do with that. Damned if I know where though. This place is like a maze.

Might be Mr Gardener in the right? Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)

Don't they have their own? Is this not them?

Idle thought... If they sold you a course that wasn't do-able, couldn't you attack that rather than the debt directly? Surely there must have been some sort of application or something? Supply of Goods and Services act stuff, failing to supply a service with reasonable skill and care? Selling you a course that was not suitable. After all, they know what is on the course, you don't. Also, didn't watchdog do something about these home learning courses a while back?