As long as the letter is not marked without prejudice then you can use it as evidence in court (basically) I intend using letters from Abbey in my claim against them.

an example would be the banking code, which somebody refered to a page or so back

ACOP = Acceptable Code of Practice

hey corn I stand up for 2 minutes and you spread out all over the couch :o

spreadies and Scotch are easy you just concentrate on dinner

Sure will Birdie but your going ot have to cook dinner hmmm BA has Birdie been included in our discussions the last few days ? if not why not and if she has why isnt she on the couch ?

For long winded letters how about one I received today in a case I started for my ex wife. It ran ot over 7 yes SEVEN pages. The last paragraph though was offering a settlement. One phone call later to correct a few discrepancies and a promise of a revised settlement offer by next week

Els if we do utilise a database we must then comply with the DPA if we keep any personally identifiable information on it. may be worth an enquiry to the ICO about in the near future.

This is becoming a new tactic for them. Tell us they are dropping action then go ahead with it. They must think we are stupid enough to forget it and throw the evidence away. Have they refunded the charges yet Un1?

Very nice we are going to have to keep an eye on that case

We have a few interesting hearings coming up in the near future BA your getting too good when Judges ask you to plead a claimants case do I detect a legal career in the making

I agree Emma your SAR should have produced a copy of the agreement, and in this case both forms of the agreement. As we have found out already they only send what they consider we need when answering an SAR. I think you will probably end up having to force the issue on this, but I suspect that if it did go before a court they will only produce the fully signed version.

BA your welcome by me to post any time you want to. your a valuable and treasured contributor.

np Redsue BA you look after him and all the best for tomorrow, please keep me updated as you usually do

If I remember correctly the changeover happened in March 2003, but I'm happy to be corrected

AC don't forget that a variation in T&C can only exists because its allowed for iun the ORIGINal agreement and ORIGINAL T&C's. hence the originals must also be sent along with the NOTICE of variation, not the new T&C. reg 7 refers to the notice of variation and doesn't say that a copy of the new T&C is sufficient.

I'll certainl;y look into making it a sticky BA, especially the condensed form when I get around to it.

if that was the Australia/ Ireland match you were not preoccupied for long

Barclaycard stil in default since August, non- compliance etc etc and attempting to enforce through a company thats not a registered data controller except through it's parent company

AC, I assume you mean SI 1983/1557 in which case here it is: General requirements as to form and content of copy documents 3.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall be a true copy thereof. (2) There may be omitted from any such copy- (a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instru­ment or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy; (b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies); © in the case of any copy of an unexecuted agreement delivered or sent to the debtor or hirer under section 62 of the Act, the name and address of the debtor or hirer; and (d) in the case of any copy given to the debtor under section 77(1) of the . Act of an executed agreement for fixed-sum credit under which a person takes any article in pawn, any description of the article taken in pawn. and in all its glory the now famous section 7: , Copies of agreements or security instruments where the agreement or security instrument has been varied 7.--(1) Where an agreement has been varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act, every copy of the executed agreement given to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act other than section 85(1) shall include either- (a) an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation given in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has been varied; or (b) an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied in accordance with section 82( 1) of the Act. (2) Where a security provided in relation to a regulated agreement has been varied, every copy of the security instrument relating to it given to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall include either- (a) an easily legible copy of any document varying the security; or (b) an easily legible statement of the terms of the security as varied.

Sounds like they need to read the rules. Thats almost as good as LTSB phoning me at 7pm on a Sunday and when I asked why he said it's because they work on a Sunday. This of course was the India call centre. I put him firmly in his place and hung up and blow me down he rang back within 5 minutes

Just to further clarify this. The default starts at close of business on the 12th day after receipt. I say this because it's how the courts etc regard it. Plus it would also work in our favour as it shows how nice and lenient we really are

This is really very simple The prescribed period is 12 days, after which they are in default. So the default situation starts on day 13 and 1 calender month later they commit the offence. I say day 13 days deliberately as the courts and other official authorities allow up to close of business on that day. In essence day 1 starts when they receive the request in the mail ( usually morning) and day 12 ends at close of business, so the default starts next morning

Peter, Somewhere in their millions of useless leaflets the OFT / FSO actual state that the continual use of phone calls may commit an offence under this act. Their guidelines actually state one call a day is permissible although I'm inclined to think that a reasonable person would find 1 call every day a bit over the top.

Sound advice as usual from M55, but as I have paid for the CCA request And simply because I'm a scheming troublemaker I'd still chase the DCA's that failed to send the agreements Ok I like having a bit of fun at the expense of a DCA or two