Have you got the agreements yourself? Did you actually get a proper agreement for all 4? That sounds a bit unusual... Not the most clever thing to do, asking them to go straight to court, given that, when faced with UE agreements (or no agreement), lenders usually just pass the accounts round from DCA to DCA, been doing that with me for nearly two years now and you'll find plenty more examples! That sounds like a major rip-off! Basically you have paid them for nothing, as you can easily have written to your creditors and obtained the agreements yourself. Not only that, but it looks like they may not have been totally honest with regards to the enforceability of the accounts either! You should look at the agreement you had with THEM and see what exactly you were supposed to get from your fees, you may have a case against them! You should be looking at reporting them to the relevant authorities such as the Law Society. Don't talk to them on the phone EVER. Just refuse to answer their security questions and/or put the phone down! After a while, they'll stop trying. Don't let them scare you with their bright red letters and all sorts of threats, they are just templates they churn out by the 100s! May be a good idea to post full details of your accounts along with any paperwork (minus personal details of course), some may be proper agreements, some may not, sounds like those 'solicitors' have been less than honest with you!

Sadly, you need to be employed for 12 months to claim unfair dismissal. The main difference between the probation period and the rest of the 12 months is the notice period, which during probation is normally a week on either side and 4 weeks afterwards. This is what a friend of mine was told when he went to see a Solicitor about it. He has been dismissed from two jobs (in the last 5 years) after an 'unsuccessful' probation, the 1st time by a major Law firm who offer, amongst other things, employment law advice to big companies, so they did everything by the book, starting with an extension of the probation period. Having sought legal advice on both occasions from various sources, the conclusion was that you don't really have a case, not only is probation intended as a way for employers to decide whether they should keep an employee or not, you also need 12 months employment to have a case. There may be exceptions where a case of, say, discrimination could be built, I know a pregnant lady who was dismissed 3 months into her job who got a settlement (unofficial) as she was told to go as soon as she mentioned her condition.

Hmmm sounds like you are acting on behalf of this company which looking at posts above seems to be engaging in fraud! And NO you don't always get what you pay for! Not with Claims or Debt Management companies you often don't! You can do all that yourself with help of sites like this or free ones lime CCCS etc.

If you want to determine the amount of charges, you need to send a SAR request. If they send blank CCAs it's probably because they don't have your agreement, in which case the debt is unenforceable. Are you still paying this?

That's correct: unenforceable debts still appear on your credit file, sad but true. If the debt is unenforceable (as admitted by themselves due to lack of a CCA) and you already have a default then I'd say there's very little reasonto pay anything.

Sounds more like a Claims Management CONpany referring to Unenforceable Credit Agreements (UCAs).

??? Assuming it really IS his debt in the first place (it may not be those guys like phishing!) his credit file will be exactly the same whether he responds or not! Recorded defaults drop off after 6 years regardless! If it was his debt & it was recorded it would stay even if he started making payments so not much point really…

Agree 100%! Judges deal with a lot of different issues not just Consumer Credit, and to remember every bit of case law as well as statute and common law would require a super-human mental capacity! They are there to pass judgment on the facts put in front of them, not to do research for you!

If you are still paying obviously you are acknowledging the debt and the clock won't start till you stop. As you know if you don't pay they could take you to court so it looks like you are looking at unenforceability rather than acknowledgment of debt, as you have been paying, that's not really an issue at this point. As to whether your debts are enforceable or not, it all depends on the dates you opened the accounts and the replies you get to your CCA requests, nothing to do with having acknowledged the debt in the past (for example, by making payments). A debt is unenforceable if they can't supply a valid agreement, that doesn't mean it goes away but it means they can't get judgment against you. Obviously the debt still exists but a court may be prevented from enforcing it. The idea, however, is to stay away from court till time runs out by making creditors and DCAs aware of the fact that you know the law and you know they are in default by not supplying a valid agreement. I have been doing this for 2 years so far but it all depends on what they have, in my case one creditor has admitted to not being able to supply a CCA in any shape or form! So, best to forget about acknowledgment of debt as not relevant at this early stage, and see what they send back in response to your CCA requests, with a bit of luck some won't be able to provide anything at all! Once you get them back OR their time is up and they haven't replied, you can put the accounts in dispute accordingly. Till then, try not to worry and enjoy the Festive Season!

Even though on Carey it says exactly the opposite, i.e. that a recon can satisfy a S78 request but you'd need an original to get a CCJ... :mad2: I guess it all depends on how well you defend and how good is the recon...

There's more to enforceability/unenforceability than a signature, the prescribed terms should be all included as they were at the time of opening the account and as varied. There's special rules regarding two part agreements, for example, for a loan with PPI. Compliance with a S78 request and enforceability are not the same thing. This is a thread about requesting a signed agreement: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html#post1868913 PT2537 the author is a solicitor... There's also this one: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?314597-Challenging-Reconstituted-Agreements Plenty of material in the Legal Issues section of the forum...

Yes, definitely, for as long as you are paying, even £1/pcm which is why creditors accept token payments that could never clear the debt but it doesn't allow it to get Statute Barred either. Your 6 years normally start the month after your last payment although this is often debated. Sending a CCA request is not acknowledging debt but to be on the safe side they should contain the words "I do not acknowledge any debt to your company" and refer to 'the alleged debt" and "the above account" rather than "my debt" and "my account". Offers of repayment, letters explaining why you can't pay, etc. constitute acknowledgment. Sending generic account in dispute letters, unenforceability warnings and CCA requests do not as long as they are worded correctly. The implications are simply that if you acknowledge the debt you restart the clock and the debt won't be Statute Barred until 6 years after that rather than 6 years without a payment. DCAs often make discount offers as bait to get you to acknowledge the debt!

:?: WHO says CAB is only for the unemployed? One thing is claiming benefits, which are affected by living with a working partner but CAB advise is for everyone! I WORK next door to a CAB and we've all been there for advise!

No, no-one is forced to do anything (well, not at gun point if that's what you mean!) However, people are often 'forced' into doing things due to circumstances, like if you have no work or money, you are 'forced' into claiming benefits, otherwise what would you do? beg? steal? All this about people being responsible etc... at the end of the day we ordinary people are not in charge of strategy and planning. That's what governments are for, otherwise what would be the point of having all those guys in Westminster? Voters can only vote for those who are up for grabs and in reality and when all the bull is set aside, there's often very little different between one and the other. Many people have been responsible all their lives, working, paying bills and debts, etc. only to have the rug pulled under their feet by the credit crunch caused by the greed so-and-so of Wall St in the first place and the ripple effect it's been having ever since! Look at these and other forums and see how many times you find something like "...till I lost my job in 2008/09/10...", "...our business collapsed 3 years ago..." etc. See a pattern emerging? There are others who have been affected by unrelated circumstances such as ill health or disability as well so no, it's no always 'up to the people' to decide!

Sanctions, of course!

As usual, the government is trying the easy solutions rather than going to the heart of the problem. Yes, there are a lot of people on benefits, yes, it costs the country a lot, yes, it's not fair on those who work and pay taxes BUT the crux of the problem is that there aren't enough jobs for everyone, simples! If you have 10 kids and just 7 toys then some are not going to get anything this Xmas, you may try to tell some of them they've been naughty and won't be getting anything or tell some they're too old for toys, or send them over to their gran's, or make any other excuse but when it comes down to it, it's not the kids fault, there just aren't enough toys! Have you guys seen the ad for Resolva weed killer which says "this perennial weed will grow again and again..." then goes on to say "kill the root, kill the weed"? That sums it all up, the governments 'measures' don't go to the root of the problem! It's all well and good to 'clamp down on scroungers', investigate everyone for potential benefit fraud and employ a private company to fail most ESA assessments but that doesn't go to the root of the problem and, like the weed, it will come back again and again! Rather than coming up with ways to deprive people of benefits the government should first concentrate on job creation, offer incentives to small businesses and restrict the expansion of big chains like Poundland and many others that are killing independent businesses. What can the owners of businesses that have gone bust do? Claim benefits of course! When you are claiming benefits all they focus on is trying to get you off their books so they can say they are getting people back to work, however, the so-called 'training and development' opportunities just aren't there! Their programs only really address the needs of teenage school leavers rather than graduates and older adults and there's virtually nothing to encourage entrepreneurship or self-employment. On the contrary, self-employed people are routinely subjected to investigation and interviews under caution. If they are going to force people to work for their benefits (which I believe goes against the idea of a safety net) then it should be on community projects, etc. Why not get grads with relevant skills to work for CABs for example? rather than shutting them down or reducing opening hours... It's high time this country woke up and smelled the coffee: Unrestrained US style capitalism just doesn't work! Without government intervention to the tune of nearly $1tn (which is totally against the principles of unrestrained capitalism), that system would have been dead in the water 3 years ago! Time to admit responsibility for the situation we're in rather than blaming the 'scroungers'!

Those are Google ads and not really controlled by CAG. I was once on the Ryanair site and, while looking for flights, I saw ads for Easyjet and BA! The ads are automatically served up by Google based on relevant keywords.

Send them this: Dear Sirs Account No/Reference No: XXXXXXXX Thank you for your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, the contents of which have been noted. In your letter you make reference to requiring my signed authorisation before you will comply with my CCA Request. I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not require that I supply you a copy of my signature. If it is for Data Protection purposes then I can supply you with documentation to substantiate my identity to you. However, I note that to date you have happily sent statements and correspondence containing extensive sensitive private information to my address and so I have to ask, if you are so concerned that you are corresponding with the correct person why has it taken you so long to raise this? As you are aware, disclosing data without adequate checks of identity is contrary to the 7th principal of Data Protection, listed in schedule 1 of the Data protection Act 1998: Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data. I note that there is no provision that removes the requirements of the act to provide this information on time, even if you are unsure of my identity; which therefore means that this account looks likely to become unenforceable until such time you actually respond to my lawful request for a copy of the agreement. I am not going to sign anything as there is nothing that formally allows you to demand such, any future failings will be swiftly reported to the regulatory bodies so I politely suggest you adhere to this refusal. I look forward to receiving the documentation requested, within the next 14 days. Yours faithfully

Check out the ACAS website: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1461 This is the place where I got my claim sorted (a free legal advice place): http://www.toynbeehall.org.uk/ Official info on unfair dismissal: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/DG_10026692

Check out the ACAS website: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1461 This is the place where I got my claim sorted (a free legal advice place): http://www.toynbeehall.org.uk/ Official info on unfair dismissal: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/DG_10026692

In 2003 I was sacked for alleged Gross Misconduct, I was living on my own, sought legal advice, got a grad solicitor to represent me, met with him and others around 8 times, filled out ET forms, wrote endless letters, got settlement through ACAS, etc.... At no point was that fact ever mentioned! Once more, how would an employer terminate an employee living on his/her own if it was illegal to send a letter?

You mean a letter stating your employment has been terminated, a.k.a. "you're fired!"? What's termination of employment got to do with living on your own? How else would you expect the employer to officially communicate the termination? :???:

I'd say speak to ACAS again, they should be able to advise. My agreement was drafted by a Solicitor and sanctioned by ACAS so it was legally binding, you should ask ACAS about this, whether any agreement you reach with them will be legally binding, otherwise no point if you can't enforce it and they can do as they please anyway...

If you are covered by a sick note you don't have to attend but you will have to explain that to them. I got it postponed from something like 25th of July to like 10th of Sept if you see what I mean... will dig up the letter I sent in the first place stating my grounds for not attending. When you say 'threaten action', do you mean it says something like "may result in your termination"? Mine DIDN'T (yet that was always the intended outcome as I know it had been decided long long before), however a friend of mine had exactly that sentence on his.

Excellent news, time is on your side and you don't need a letter telling them you won't be attending the disciplinary on Monday like I had to send at the time!