Going BR is not to their advantage at all, as questioning rightly points out, (in a rather colourful matter), they'd get now't. However, your mother may wish to consider doing it herself but it'd cost circa £750. If there are any other vultures circling (when there are zero pickings) then they could be shot down at the same time. I would take proffesional advice tho.

well for a start, don't let the missus interfere... It'd be nice to have a copy of the letter B sent to A canceling the contract. As it was B's alleged negligence that caused all this. Also, DS are now acting on A's behalf so I' have thought ISP A would want them acting in a manner complying with guidelines which they are in breach of (SP's observations). I'd put the amount into dispute (how much is it anyway), use SP's observations (at least) and report them and generally be right bl00dy militant. BTW, any uninvited visitor to 'collect' this has as much right to pester you for this alleged debt as I have. IIRC the case law is in a template letter on this site somewhere. Sadly, It is often the case that once they realise you're no pushover they move onto easier targets and harass and bully them.

I just love the way you peeps unpick this stuff. Some very interesting points. Opening up a dispute is an option, as is reporting them, as is sitting tight.

Looks like a threatogram to me. Note the 'Legal action may...' weasel words. Is this account in dispute, did the ISP not comply with their side of a contract in some way ?. I'm not sure of the significance of an agreement here but I'm sure someone else will.

The online telegraph are running this story as well, they say hes been imprisoned indefinately: Loan shark who raped customer jailed indefinitely - Telegraph:

I would guess sheer frustration possessed you to say that. Trying to get through to someone who clearly doesn't listen or has any grasp of the circumstances.

this looks a useful bit of kit for rejecting calls from the ex-mother-in-law. Quick Q, (without having to trawl thru the forums). Does this device work on any line, I'm with Virgin. TIA

To suggest this database will be secure is pure fantasy. Details are bound to leak out out, get downloaded onto a memory stick (that gets lost) or whatever. But thats just the thin end of the wedge. I wouldn't be surprised to see the data get passed on to 3rd parties in some circumstances (eg insurance companies, police, CPS, some employers perhaps (to name a few)).

imho, one of the important things here is a sea change of opinion. I infer that OFT employees may now be thinking it is fashionable to investigate DCA's and their unlawful methods whereas before they may have felt, 'on their own' and not bothered. From what I've seen/heard of him, I quite like G Thomas, seems a straight talking no-nonsense MP who is in it for others and not himself.

A door collector eh. Some DCA's use the phrase 'licensed field agent'. Sounds like something from a James Bond motion picture..... The justification for this 'title' is due to the fact the 'licensed field agent' is under the umbrella license of the alleged creditor. They have no more rights to collect any alleged debt than a delivery boy shoving a bogof offer through your letterbox.

It'd be helpful to post up full details of each alleged debt and where you are with each, eg: who with when how much current status

If you're sure no NOA has been sent then I honestly don't know the legal implications of that. However, there have been threads on here before where NOA's have been produced by 1st Credit themselves. Furthermore, they are an attempt to look like they come from the OC. The envelope is a giveaway (Reigate postmark), however, it is believed they have the OC's permission to do this. Send off the PPI letter (can you post a link to it - I couldn't find it). As you rightly say, the CCA you posted should be verified for compliance with your request, I'm hoping someone more experienced than I can do that.

I'm not so sure you need to send the aforementioned letter, just send the PPI one.

Most certainly not. A court could order you to disclose I and E but certainly not a creditor. The exception for disclosing i and e might be to a 3rd party like Payplan/CCCS when setting up a DMP. They would work out a budget and in doing so, I and E would no doubt be exposed but in this case, the information would not have been given under threat.

imho, sending the 'bemused letter' would be premature because the account has yet to be marked 'in dispute' (because of mis-sold PPI ?). My thoughts on this thread require verification from a senior CAG'er.

Imho the prescribed terms are there, but also (imho), I think it falls over flat on the miss-selling of PPI. If that is the case, then I believe this account can be marked in dispute. I'm hoping an old lag will spot this and provide the definitive answer.

If they say "they may be recording the call, for training or audit purposes" (which is most likely) then as I understand it, this will negate their privileges and protections. Perhaps an opinion from an old lag is required.. anyone ??

I believe what you have received is a standard LCS threatogram. There are at least 2 issues here: You have asked for a CCA, it has not been provided. You may have been mis-sold PPI . Both of these are grounds to put the account in dispute, even if they could provide the CCA it must be the true executed copy and bear the correct prescribed terms. No doubt the LCS letter says "phone them immediately to discuss this issue". Whatever you don't, or if they ring you, decline to answer security questions, everything in writing from now on. If you must speak to them on the phone, make sure your record it (but don't tell them that). Also, do not provide a signature on any correspondence and if you post anything up here, remove all identifiers (and that includes BARCODES). When 12+2 is up, send teh account in dispute letter. You may have seen this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/186046-there-god-1st-credit.html Follow the links in post number 1, I needn't explain but this seems worthy of a complaint to the OFT.

ok, here goes again: Quick (but very important) Q specialbrew69: Who is making the threat of serving an SD on you ?

IMHO, we're in unchartered waters. Yes, they've had a yellow card and that may ultimately end in a red. However, their 'in house', 'solicitors' are still sending out threatograms. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/187516-1st-credit-threatening-force.html

good heavens, is this: 1: an administrative error, or 2: a brazen disregard of the OFT reprimand or, a 3: threat to phone them and get harassed/bullied. any other suggestions/advice ?

The LCS letter has the date obscured, is it pre or post OFT reprimand ?

I think what they're alluding to is no oil on the plate then its fair wear and tear. If oiled up then it indicates premature failure of either/both the crankshaft seal and /or the gearbox input shaft seal. 29K miles doesn't seem much for a clutch then I guess it depends how the car has been used, it sounds even less for a seal to go.

Sosumis is right, but another question: The reprimand Sosumi mentions is detailed in an OFT press release dated the 25th Feb. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/186046-there-god-1st-credit.html Is your LCS letter pre or post OFT reprimand. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/press_release_attachments/1stcreditrequirements.pdf Have a good read of the guidelines laid down and I would suggest a letter of this nature from LCS (who are 1st credits in-house solicitors) is not within them.

subbing