A large chunk of the 'money' involved in the present financial crisis relates to Credit Default Swaps - CDS, as distinct from Derivatives in general. They are a process whereby people can bet on the credit position of any debtor. A buyer pays a premium to a seller who agrees to pay out if a 'credit event' occurs (default, re-structuring, bankruptcy etc). The buyer may have a connection with the debtor, or not. These transactions were not sanctioned by any government or central bank in the world, they simply arose as an arrangement between private individuals or organisations. Consequently they were not officially regulated. They are not traded on an exchange and have no duty of reporting to any official agency. They are the likely cause of the present financial crisis. They can be divided into two classes. A, where there is some relationship between the buyer and the debtor and B, where there is no relationship. Case A, where there is effectively an insurable interest, is most like Insurance. Case B, is effectively gambling. As we know, both insurance and gambling are both heavily regulated worldwide and, consequently, well defined. How is it that financial organisations can voluntarily create these two forms of business, insurance and gambling, with nobody batting an eyelid and without paying appropriate duties to the government of jurisdiction? Insurance - A promise of compensation for specific potential future losses in exchange for a periodic payment. Insurance Companies are licensed, regulated and required to maintain reserves to cover their liabilities. CDS traders are not! Gambling - To bet on an uncertain outcome. It seems almost obvious that people who were conducting such transactions were breaking the law? Why were they not prosecuted? The estimated value of CDS's in the market today is about $25 trillion, half the worlds GDP and at least 80 times the size of the global narcotics trade. Quite a lot wouldn't you say? And all effectively illegal? The whole global derivatives market is 20 times the size of the world economy. The European parliament managed to recognise their existence in 2004 and bring them within regulation, which UK did in 2006. Presumably USA has done to? But their form and rules have never been defined by legislation. Definitely the tail wagging the dog! These instruments, along with other derivatives are what enables the markets to wage war on banking, business and governments and consumers and taxpayers will end up picking up the tab. We should demand effective control! Would this be worthy of a template letter to everyone's MP and MEP demanding appropriate legislation?

And if they're unable to produce evidence of that agreement? It seems unreasonable that they should make assumptions that they can't then prove?

Natwest Reply We advise that you have acknowledged the outstanding balance as have made repayment agreements and will have received all previous notices. We have ordered statements for the last 6 years to show your liability. In the meantime this matter is now in the hands of Fredrickson International Limited, a firm of collection agents acting on the bank´s behalf Instructions have been sent for them to contact you. ........ My fax to them stated; I do not acknowledge the mentioned debt and dispute that there is any, all amounts due having been paid off. Consequently, please suspend any further collection actions pending resolution of this dispute and instruct any agencies you may use accordingly. If you disagree with this situation please would you send me a true copy of the original agreement and statements to cover the whole period together with any other pertinent correspondence detailing the debt and conduct of the account which, I believe, you are obliged to do within 14 days? Please note that under the data protection act you are not authorised to pass any of my personal details to any other person, Company, agency or organisation without my prior permission. They have ignored the question of dispute They have passed my details to an external agency against my wishes. They are unable to provide documentation before 2004. In addition, they have never sent regular statements of the outstanding balance since 1992. Throughout the period 1996 - 2001 they made continual errors in tracking the payments they were receiving and had to be corrected on numerous occasions. In May 2001 they wrote to confirm that 'The account was transferred ..... to Telford in September 1999 with very little detail as to how the account has progressed oer the last few years' and were unable to provide statement information prior to that date (since 1992). Whilst I would not be able to provide precise transaction details since 1992 they certainly do not have sufficient information to prove their case. If I say the debt is repaid is the onus entirely on them to prove that is not the case or am I liable to prove that it is? Have they contravened the data protection act by passing my address to another Company? Is it possible to gain an injuction to prevent them from taking further action and would a solicitor do this on the basis of being able to claim costs from them? (bearing in mind I am not in UK). What does the team think? J

Slightly off the subject of enforceability, this does make quite an interesting read as there do appear to be a number of contradictions within it. I particularly noticed, on the subject of CRA reporting, at para 6, the letter issued by the bank which is, to all intents and purposes, a threatened action in the event of non compliance; `The Group and other companies may use the record of default and any other information provided to the agencies when considering applications by you, or other members of your household, for facilities including motor, household, credit, life and general insurance.` the phrase `or members of your household` which covers anyone in your household, not just family members, and which phrase was specifically mentioned by the claimants solicitor. Subsequently in para 35 the defendants cited a leaflet issued by the ICO which states that `the concept of associates or association for the purposes of credit performance data is limited to those who have a joint account or have made a joint application for credit`. The two critical statements are actually entirely incompatible. The defendants cited the entire purpose of CRA's as being for the purposes of responsible lending, which the judge accepted, in which case how can they, in effect be used as a means of threat of coercion? It's highly debatable whether CRA's are effectlively a form of blacklist (which is against the law see para 83 section 6.10.28) if they include any negative information as it is effectively representing people as a bad risk. If it is possible to justify CRA's at all one could argue that they may only be allowed to present positive information i.e. a loan was granted, the loan has been appropriately serviced in the past year, etc. A prospective lender would potentially be able to see open levels of credit and be able to make their own investigation if they feel any doubt may exist and still support the acitivity of responsible lending. As I say, there seemed to be a number of contradictions and didn't seem to offer a great deal of comfort in respect of consumer protection. The culture of threat and intimidation is allowed to continue.

I suspect having any impact on Carters activities or behaviour will be very difficult, unless there is evidence of law breaking, which he is probably careful to avoid? Pushing the boundaries of decent behaviour is probably not enough to bring him any actual retribution. One would need to able to review sufficient case studies to see whether he had actually broken any rules. If I'm right and there are no actual formal guidelines defining what is acceptable behaviour and what is not then debt collectors pretty much have carte blanche if they stay within the letter of the law. Perhaps the first step is to define what acceptable behaviour is and then see what prospect there is of getting any regulatory bodies to define acceptable behaviour in guidelines? Debt collecting, even now, relies on this atmosphere of intimidation and fear and, in most cases, simply heaps hardship on top of hardship. This really does not offer any opportunity for resolving such issues in an adult businesslike manner, especially for people who do not have a background in business or finance. This forum does seem like an excellent resource and include many people who are committed to supporting their fellow man in times of trouble in an objective way. As regards `scratching an itch` it is probably the combined weight of all the people who have felt this itch which may serve to bring about change. How many people can you encounter who have had dealings with this firm?

Well, Natwest have been notified of the dispute and relevant paperwork and proof requested from them and Freds have been notified of the dispute which, I believe, stops them from taking any further action? Freds have also been requested to notify Carter, as the fax number I was given on another thread does not seem to be operational (I suspect they've moved over to 0845 numbers which can't be dialled from abroad). It does concern me that Carter seems likely to take actions without allowing a reasonable period of time for any response and may therefore completely jump the gun? Assuming Natwest are prepared to take a civilised approach to dispute resolution then there shouldn't really be any problems. Unfortunately debt recovery seems always to function in an atmosphere of intimidation and fear which should really not be the case in modern times. Culturally endemic! Do any meaningful guidelines exist as to how debt recovery should be conducted? I suspect not. Does this forum or should this forum have the ability to engage in such a debate?

Hi, had to think about Dca for a mo. I guess that would be Fredricksons? I phoned and e-mailed them and then Carter turned up within a couple of days. All pretty unhelpful. I got straight on to Natwest today and will be dealing with them and fax the others to say so and that the debt is in dispute and therefore not acknowledged.

Hey, that's brilliant cerberusalert, thanks for your instant help. J

Can anybody give me a fax number for Bryan Carter in Weybridge, so I can tell them to b***er off? Many thanks J

I had a defaulted overdraft with Natwest in 1992 which I continued repaying until Feb 2009 at which time I considered it repaid. They are curerntly advising an amount still outstanding via debt collectors and threatening court action (Bryan Carter & Co). I am not in receipt of any of their letters as they have been sent to my son's address in UK and I am not in UK. Last received correspondence between us was January 2002. Payments were made automatically by standing order. I have telephoned Natwest Recovery Department (which seem to operate under a name of Crichtons or something?) and explained I think the debt is paid off and they say the best they can do is ask for statements to be sent covering the last 6 years and that they couldn't provide any details prior to 2002 when RBS tookover Natwest. I daresay they will ask me to provide proof that the debt is paid off but is the legal onus actually on them to prove that it hasn't? I shall ask them for copy of the original agreement and statements for the entire period up to date which I gather they think they will not be able to provide. Are statements going back only 6 years adequate to prove the debt? At the end of 1996 they were having difficulty accounting for the payments they were receiving and crediting them to the correct account and it required some correspondence before they would agree that they were actually receiving payments. Given the potential for uncertainty and their probable inability to prove the accounting over this period, would they have any legal basis for making any further claim? Perhaps a slightly unusual situation, does anyone have any suggestions as to what the legal position might be? Thanks in advance for any comments. J