The OFT have a very long document that explains what a DCA must provide under a S77/78 request. I recommend you read it. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT1272.pdf What is the dispute exactly?

Me? No. The law quoted has nothing to do with contracts/assets being sold. It exists to give third parties rights under a contract where they have an interest but are not a party to the cotnract. They are 2 seperate issues as far as I can work out. There is nothing in the quoted legislation (1999 Act) that prevents agreements from being sold.

http://www.website-law.co.uk/blog/contract-law/the-contracts-rights-of-third-parties-act-1999-an-introduction/ Above website has a good explanation - its basically a law that was brought in to give rights to people who may not be party to a contract but have an interest in them. I am not sure the law affects Credit type issues. Example given: English law can be unfair. In 1962, Peter Beswick agreed to hand over his business to his nephew, John. In exchange, John contracted to pay a sum of money to Peter each week and, after his death, to Peter’s widow. After Peter died, John decided not to pay. He almost succeeded. Peter’s widow could not sue under the contract herself as she was not a party to it — but she was administering Peter’s estate, and was able to enforce it on his behalf. This is an example of the rule of privity of contract: just as only the parties to a contract can acquire legal obligations under that contract, they are also as a general rule the only parties which acquire any legal rights under it. A third party, like Peter’s widow, cannot enforce a contract where they suffer a loss as a result of its breach. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (CRTPA) creates an exception which mitigates the harshness of this rule. Where a contract confers a benefit on a third party, that party may acquire the right to sue.

I would say that the JPEG posted is not easily legible - or to put it another way - readable. Certainly in some palces anyway. But I am unsure if it has been sent to the Op in paper form and they have scanned it or whether they were sent that JPG directly.

I dont think you will get far on that line - you can produce copies of copies in criminal prosecutions so I daresay no one is going to give a toss in civil situations when what is produced actually is a copy of the original document. I dont think the fact its gone from paper to microfiche to paper/JPEG is relevant as long as it has not been changed and is legible (allowing maybe for some pixellation/loss of quality).

As far as I understand it a debt is an asset and can be sold just like any other asset - for example gym memberships or mobile phone contracts. So if the original company you have signed up with wants to sell themselves off to another party then they can do so and your contract automatically goes to the new company. Likewise, the original company may just want to sell off your account for whatever reason. It is usually written into the contract that this may happen. The CCA just has extra requirements when this happens.

I think this will be covered by the Torts (jnterference with goods) legislation (look it up) it will prob say something like give them X days to come pick it up otherwise you can dispose of it. so you will probably have to send another letter giving them a last chance.

Your contract is with American Golf At the end of the day if De Vere won't take the voucher and you bought the goods on the basis of having that voucher then really you will either have to refund the goods, keep them or maybe sue American Golf. I doubt it is worth the hassle and I don't think you would be entitled to much money. I agree that just changing terms willy nilly is not on, but you didnt buy the voucher from De Vere so I do not think its relevant. Its American Golf that gave you the voucher.

I dont disagree but essentially it comes down to what extent the data has to be accurate. And I don't think the answer has to be 100% all of the time.

They are entitled to blame the client - because the client provided them with the data - they (Lowells) cannot be expected to check every piece of data - and even if they did the only way to confirm would be to ring the number. Its arguable whether they should give you the clients name - yes on one hand it would allow you to complain to them (but you will prob get the same answer) - but on the other hand (and this is Lowells position) - they have deleted the data from the records and therefore the issue is sold from their point of view - obviously they cannot be held responsible if that same bit of incorrect data is out there on other credit accounts. If you really must complain to the original creditor/client then I would look at the DPA in more detail and see if there are any methods you could use to get the data 'by force' from Lowell. Quite clearly Lowells are not going to give it up voluntarily. TS can request data from companies but 'data issues' are possibly out of their remit...better suited to ICO probably.

Even if you get the original creditors name they are unlikely to give you the actual debtors name and details (coz presumably they will think you want to contact them). If you do get the original creditors name and complain to them I imagine you will get a similar response to what Lowell have given you. Do you want the original creditors name or the debtors name as well (i.e to contact them and put a stop to this)? My understanding of the DPA is that you are unlikely to get that info (debtors details) but it might be worth looking into more detail to see if there are anyspecial rules for this sort of situation.

Point 1 - I think what they are saying is that as veteran is not the debtor they are not under any obligation to reveal much of the information asked for - I would have thought they should have given their company name though - but I do not think they have to say they are a DCA - you will have to check the DCG. What they should say is we are company X but clearly we have the wrong number. End Call. The rest of the response is not surprising TBH.

That leads me to believe that the DCAs and the Police have probably looked up this persons information from in the same place. Are you absolutley sure Credit Files do not show up phone numbers? If not then they may have acces to older versions of the BT phone book..... How many years was the number out of action?

So what punishment did Datatrace UK get for their 'mistake' with regards to Beryl Brazier? Arguably there could be some similar traits to this issue - although this might be a case of recycled phone number more than anything.

I dont have a problem with the OPs course of action - why do you have a problem with anyone suggesting a course of action which ties up DCAs regardless of whether a complaint is valid or not. Why shouldn't the Op get to hear contrasting arguments for or against a course of action, or should he only get to hear your extremley aggresive anti DCA way? IMO the Op will be wasting his time pursing this complaint to an extreme level - it is up to him whetehr he wnats to or not - but you seem quite happy to let him do so as long as it suits your own agenda. If Op doesnt wnat to hear my own opiniosn then I won't post them - he hasn't indicate to the contray yet though.

I don't think there is a requirement to check every piece of data that is passed on, and not something as minor as a phone number - especially if it was given originally by the account holder (albeit, 1 digit could have been typed in wrong originally).

I have assumed him to be over 50 - probably due to the description 'veteran' and some other descriptions by Stu but I stand to be corrected. As to your second sentence... thats my point, can he make any lasting difference with this complaint? If there was an obvious breach of the DPA and it led to the company being fined 500k then that is one thing - but there doesn't seem to be a breach of the DPA *at all* here.

If your friend wants to pursue things I would suggest he has it clear in his mind what he actually wants to achieve and have a way of measuring the end game - or I fear he will spend months getting himself stressed and achieving nothing - seen it all to often with elderly people I am afraid. At the moment I am struggling to see what that might be or how it will be achieved - simply because I cannot see any breach of law or rules that have occured. As I say, it would be different if he was continually getting harassed by the same people over and over, but for the large part it looks like he hasn't.

Stu, I think his point is - has there been incompetence? It sounds like the DCAs are as much a victim as your friend is, in that its really the person who gave the phone number out that is to blame.

A tad longwinded way to go about it. They would have ahd to have taken out credit and waited AGES for it to have gone to DCAs etc - months probably. Can you not get back onto the Police and asked where they obtained the number? Was is actually given to them directly or have they looked it up themselves somehow?

You say Capquest won't tell you what the debt is about and just keep wanting payment? If that is the acse then I would report it to Consumer Direct (and make clear what the issue is).

They would be stupid not to. I know Trading Standards staff who also look at this site and some other popular consumer forums just to see what is happening out there. I imagine a lot of other people interested in consumer matters would do the same.

I wouldnt expect an MD or CEO of a large company to respond to a complaint directly (cnsidering its fairly run of the mill) - they have staff to do that! Anyway thinking about it logically there are only 2 ways I can think of why your friends number is out there 1) there is either someone out there activley giving it 2) Somehow it has ended up on his credit file and therefore all other people contatcing you are basing it on that. Would it be possible to ask the credit reference people to run a search on your number and delete it from their system for records not concerning your friend? The only issue is that they would effectivley be amending other peoples credit refernce file - not sure is that would be do-able - but I spose if you now own the number the least they could do is put a note on it.

Nope. Why don't you answer the question. I presume your response is a joke.

As Give them FA has indicated it doesnt seem to be one or two companies calling him over and over but loads of different ones. Unless he has control over the person giving out the number then he will probably have to face the facts that he may still get calls long into the future. The only other thing I can think of is that this person has published their name with number incorrectly somewhere which is leading to these calls. Unless he can track it down and remove it I can't see what else can be done - apart from wasting hours contacting each individual ocmpany after they have already called him.