Sorry hinckley I didn't mean to imply that you were; a lot of folk get obsessed about what will happen to their money (often 'pot') if they quit, whereas the real question is what happens to it if they carry on...Hence, when one's in a hole, stop digging. x v

Hi guys Dead money is what it is; and it is likely to matter not if some DMC tries to claim a debt on the basis of fees alone. As dx says I should get out fast and take control. x v

Hi rose This is typical MBNA. You might send account in dispute letter just so you can quote it some future DCA. If they have sold it then some bandit will appear demanding monies and you can ask them for relevant documentation. I see no harm in maintaining token payments whilst things ferment as long as they are merely tokens. Good luck; fortunately MBNA has sold mine on; I'm obviously more deliquent than you. love vic PS Welcome to CAG.

Hi mikey I would politely thank them for their reply and helpful invitation; you have 6 months to raise the FOS complaint and I should be inclined to do that just short of the 6 months (obviously contigent on developments) and these things inevitably take time. Then: stand easy. x v

Hi W Meiosis or litotes or wishful thoughts? x v

Schicklgruber

Hi Wintry I quite agree that: DMP is the best option for some folk There is no need or point in paying for a DMP DMPs could be usefully regulated. However, I’m sure that your experience would indicate that one size doesn’t fit all, and mine is a deeper point: “As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.” (I am not a fan of the author by the way) x v

Hi Wintry You invite debate… A fundamental problem with a DMP is that one concedes the intellectual battleground to the enemy. For sure, trigger figures should be transparent and a mandatory minimum; however, one should first establish that an alleged debt is of an accurate amount and recoverable in law; these are the essential consumer protections rendered by the CCAct and other laws as amplified by regulatory guidance. “be you ever so high, the law is above you.” “The effect of the Human Rights Act has gone some way to ensure some basic rights cannot be removed by the state and are actionable in the courts.” To move to practical realities: most folk will attempt to keep their affairs in order not least because the latest financial terrorist tactic is to screw one’s CRF and the practical effect on, say, a mortgage rate outweighs the moral feeling of suffering injustice. So, I knowingly, willingly and stupidly run 80k of unsecured credit card debt for 20 years and juggle 20%ish interest rates (and interest applicable charges); this is my fault, mea culpa; I do not condone debt avoidance. The moment my balls drop from the air, I discover that ‘Helpful banking’, ‘Priceless Diamond’ etc etc actually means harassment to the point that consequential suicide is a legitimate debt collection technique. I ‘phone National Debtline (very good – they say pay nothing) and find CAG who do not advocate debt avoidance but do inform me of my legal rights. I go to, say, CAB, who say we can arrange a DMP with CCS or PayPlan (from whom they receive a small undeclared commission) and interest MAY be frozen etc etc. I enter the purgatory of penury in perpetuity within which your somewhat self-indulgent debate proposes tinkering with the terms of castration. You will forgive me should I chose merely to assert my lawful rights; with and within CAG. God bless x v

Hi again Sam I spake too soon, however the line remains ignore. I have just received missive from latest goons, ICC Legal Services, in an envelope labeled 28p postage and over-stamped: “DO NOT SURCHARGE CORRECT POSTAGE RAISED BY REVENUE PROTECTION TREAT AS 2ND CLASS” wow, how scary is that? It contains , ‘NOTICE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS’ and demands £84, wow, how scary is that? I ‘phone them ( I know, and this is not recommended – but I get bored and find that ‘phoning DCAs wearies them more than it wearies me (Act 1, Scene 1 The Merchant of Venice); I refer to them to the reply-given-in-arkell-v-pressdram http://jackofkent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/reply-given-in-arkell-v-pressdram.html x v

Hi Motty The priority debt is unpaid council tax; however if possible you should pay this direct to the council and ignore any collection/bailiff charges. The water cannot cut you off. You can pay whatever you can afford and no more. The electricity is a priority if they are your current supplier; they will fit a pre-paid meter; if they're not your supplier then as per water. I don't know about pay day accounts, but colleagues do. x v

Hi Red This is an interesting example of litotes and meiosis. If acting on behalf of their client, they always have to refer back. Where they've bought a list of account numbers and alleged balances they clearly have nothing more than a list of account numbers and alleged balances. Your comment about being penny wise is well made. x v

Hi exchange Nice one. For the benefit of others reading, I always respond by email to missives acknowledging receipt of their missive dated x and received y (and staple the annotated envelope to said missive for my audit trail); this misuse of dates is a standard harassment tactic (and often used with time limited special discount offers) and I find it useful subtlety to remind them of this: I have no idea why they would do this were they to have a legally enforceable:-) debt. x v

Hi samacon Ignore as Boo says. I have had 2 recently from different mobs. One gave up after 7 letters of increasing ludicrousness to which I never replied. The other has ceased after 3 letters. Ignore, ignore. x v

Hi royal I take a pragmatic view. Supply an I&E statement if you think it will help and don’t if you don’t. CASH flow is very good for adding authenticity if you choose to. Similarly, do a joint one if it helps and a single one if it doesn’t. Brig is of course quite correct that a partner’s income has no bearing on a non-joint account; however, I have found presenting the full household picture helpful as then what you call b*ggers can see a genuine inability to pay. love vic PS I would never ever supply an I&E to a DCA

Hi webby One has to take a pragmatic view (men have died for principles and graveyards are full of people who though they were indispensible). Equally, when considering tactics one should avoid taking irreversible decisions whenever possible simply because it constrains strategy (The Apprentice May 3). So, as bbnb says, they will trash your CRF whatever you do. If you are fairly confident that things will improve then base + 6.5% is not bad (as long as the T&C guarantee that, which I doubt). In any event, I would maintain payments at the current level (which is the maximum affordable) pending further research. love vic

Hi mikey My correspondence has also met a deafening response. They have dissembled my complaint and merely repeat that they have bought something from MBNA. I have asked for a Final Response to my complaint from each of their entities that has written to me so as to facilitate my formal complaint to FOS; strangely, silence is the sad reply. I am sitting back and waiting. Knowing how aggressively MBNA harass customers, I should imagine that a delinquent MBNA book was not a pretty profitable paragon and that somebody may have bitten off more than they can chew. x v Keep the intel coming guys.

Hi sk All DCAs and their MOs are known to us; so you just need to ask. The language used is a further clue 'collecting on behalf of...' etc etc; something that's really been sold should be preceded with a NOA, and be careful and take advice if you suspect this; your CRF is also a clue as to who thinks they own an account. Happy hunting. x v

Thanks Wintry This is very good; I wish I'd read it 9.00 this morning. 2.107 If the claimant, their appointee or agent, or person to whom benefit was paid, could not reasonably have been expected to realise this, the overpayment is not recoverable. HB Reg 100 & (SPC) 81; CTB Reg 83 & (SPC) 68 Note: The question of whether an overpayment is recoverable is separate from the question of whether to recover it. x v

Hi sk100 As bbnb says above, you can maintain the token payments whether or not they say they accept them or whether it's formal or informal. The main point to this is that they're less likely to take you to court if you're paying something. Generally OCs say they're selling a debt on to a DCA when in reality they're farming it out on a commission only basis for collection; sometimes this is merely to a pretend in-house harassment wing, e.g. Mercers for Barclays. The only accounts I've had sold on properly are Egg who sold the whole shebang to Bob Diamond (no wonder his return on shareholders' capital is so low) and MBNA who sold a delinquent book to Paragon when they were exiting Europe (again their book's so crap, they can't find any mug to buy it - not even Bob can agree a price). Premature offerings of F&F means they smell blood; make haste slowly, let the enemy come to you; and who knows, you may come to enjoy the sport. love vic

Hi doughy I think you need to turn this on its head; are these repayments sustainable in the medium to long term? If not, then a DMP is worth considering; if yes , and it's just a short-term blip, then you might write to all creditors explaining your temporary drop in income. I would not hold your breath about them freezing interest; there is the standard line on reclaiming charges/ PPI. love vic

Hi seq I think this is clear and useful intel. I hate being boring and should not wish to be overly pedantic or didactic. These were both unsolicited 'offers' from OCs or accounts that are with OCs. In the case of the former it's an old Laurel & Hardy Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, but the latter I would accept as entirely kosher (barring a few hundred unlawful charges). x v

Hi guys Folk often ask what is a reasonable target for a F&F, so I thought I’d share some recent experiences. A major high street bank credit card (no name, no pack drill but it’s a diamond mob run by a Chinaman) has offered me an unsolicited 45% F&F (and our client will write off the balance) via a DCA (who appears to represent people in a far-away country of which I know nothing) to whom I am paying nothing. Another major, state owned, high street bank credit card recently gratuitously advised me, sotto voce, that it was curious that their rules obligated them to accept £1 pm rather than anything less than a F&F of 50%. This is all academic by the way; because I is skint, innit. x v

Hi bbnb Following a formal complaint to Bob Diamond, I have a lengthy reply from them saying: “…the information that is recorded on your credit file is correct and will not be amended.” “However, I must advise you that if you fail to pay in accordance with the arrangement then a default may retrospectively been (sic) registered on your credit file from the date the formal recovery process started.” Perhaps Bob’s bonus might be related to the literacy of his missives? I then get an Offer of Settlement (bold typeface, underlined and 14 point) from some goon of precisely 45%. x v

Hi Mayfield OFT says: http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/cca/unenforceable-credit-agreements One might write and say account in dispute quoting above. x v

Hi webby I have a parallel situation with BCard save that my DMP would take 940 years leaving a negative marker in perpetuity; I have pointed this out to them who in turn have given their Final Response that this is an accurate reflection however they will default the account viz CRF were I to totally cease payments; I am following their advice. It's often said that we don't condone debt avoidance, yet, the more one tries to do the right the thing, the more they screw you and see it as a sign of weakness. I am complaining (again) to FOS because I see this as using one's CRF as a weapon of mass destruction by Bob Diamond (£18 mill this year). Onwards and upwards x v