EVERYONE complains about moorcroft and still nothing has been done.

I see what you're saying but laws are passed for a reason whether judge likes it or not he's there to supposedly make sure there's no foul play according to current legislation

Been there done that. Westcot seems to be their preferred choice of disease. at least they're writing to you rather than phoning you. I'm not sure how arrangements work between Lloyds and westot, but westcot DO NOT check details before engaging their mouths. ie that they have the legal right to pursue. I would say try the FOS, they not fair, impartial, and as they are paid by the industry. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them. As for finding out where you are. Its very hard to hide personal details in this day and age. Ask for proof of the debt is 1) Current 2) Yours then take it from there

Sorry to bump this thread as it's a carbon copy of what I'm going through. Would I be right in saying that Debt Collection agencies just buy debts blindly and don't check the debt exists,and legally entitled collect ?

jsa12. that link is a carbon copy of what I'm going through. Thanks for the link.

That's a little basic. If creditors hadn't lent money none of us would be here.

Not turning up ( whatever the reason apart from sudden death or run over ) is not going to help. If you really are that serious about this it's either law society or Judicial Appointments Commission. I bet the procedure is far from simple.

I was thinking that.

So looking at it a debt collector can ask for money with no agreement in place, just because a bank told them to do it.

so these OFT guide lines should be thrown in the bin, is that right ? Sections 77-79 of the Act give an individual the right to ask for a copy of their credit agreement and a statement of account from the lender for £1. Under normal circumstance this could have been the original agreement was lost and the individual needed to check the terms such as the interest rate. If the creditor did not send a copy of the agreement within 12 working days, they were not allowed to take further action or enforcement against the individual until they sent the agreement. This is where the confusion arose. The OFT consultation incorporates the findings of recent High Court cases that have clarified a number of technical issues. For example, sections 77-79 of the CCA allows a consumer to request a 'true copy' of their agreement. The High Court ruled that a true copy does not have to be a photocopy or an exact copy of the original. The lender is allowed to provide a reconstituted agreement, as long as that version is accurate and contains all the original information apart from the few exceptions that the law allows (which include the signature, signature box and date of signature). The guidance also makes it clear that if a lender cannot comply with the sections - making an agreement unenforceable - then it is restricted in the debt collection activities it can undertake. The OFT considers it would be wrong to threaten court action if the lender knows that it is not possible. Crucially the OFT has made it clear that 'Unenforceable' does not mean that an individual’s debt is wiped out. Any outstanding debt is still owed, but there are some consequences for the lender’s ability to enforce the debt, but they can: • request payment • issue a default notice • pass details of the default to a credit reference agency (e.g. Equifax, Experian or Callcredit) • pass the individual’s information onto a debt collector

I'm just as confused as you and confused as to how this case has gone so badly wrong. I'm trying to defend myself ( like 99% of the people reading this ) . I'm not make a claim yet here I am reading this.

Has anyone in the last 12 months been able to defend a no CCA case?

This is damn scary. I'm about to go through the same myself with No cca. What is the point of a law if every judge ignores it.

FFS no one is going to bite the hand that feeds them. What a joke! Cheers Rebel just proves what I said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12253746 no more ACS law

Is that a definite £450 as fact it's hardly surprising and would make them VERY biased to the point they need to be disbanded. Hardly a service to the consumer.

If the FOS are financed by the banking industry ( which is a fair assumption ) why would they bite they (The FOS) hand that feeds them, and I still don't see why other bodies say they are fair and independent. they're not ! What I'm having used against me is that bank are only obliged to keep record for 6 years. That makes no sense. obliged to keep for that period and longer ?... is min or max???? I don't understand . so if I had a loan for 10years they'd still throw the agreement away(!!) that's just plain dumb. surely they should hold onto records for as long as there's not a zero balance. Am I right or wrong in saying that.

Reading it now. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?291474-Waksman-Carey-and-summary-of-findings-4&highlight=waksman

Is it worth continuing with these HIGHLY biased people

Here's what they said. "I took the money so there for I should pay it back and he sees no reason why LLoyds should lose that money just for the sake of no current agreement." Does that sound right ?

Can anyone advise on my options? Please.

Well, while it's with them no one gets paid because it's in dispute and I still want to see a properly executed CCA( which it wasn't )

This isn't sounding good at all.

Oh well, lets see what happens.

Right, that's about as much as I want to listen to then. Wish I hadn't given them the case. Why do these ombudmans and the rest of them even exist if they're not going to do the job properly.edit I'll get a lawyer!