Hello

(I meant I would close CAG (i.e. log off and go away), not close CAG down)

Two more messages removed from the moved thread tonight. I suggest someone looks at what I've posted on there as I am very serious

Apparently I haven't got any toys left. AFD thinks I threw them all out of my pram (yes, I'm aware of that AFD). I'm still on strike and will not be helpful in any way shape or form until someone sorts this out (and I know which someone I mean!)

Argh Another phone call from HBOS call centre regards a Sainsbury's bank card. You speak to one of them and they are allowed to call 5 times a day, speak to another one and they are allowed to speak to you 4 times a day. Speak to another one and they are allowed to speak to you 3 times for each number they hold, yet not one of them have heard of the administration of justice act, or understand harrassment. I had one guy who said Oftel guidelines, but when pressed he didn't know any more. How can we stop these companies from misinforming their workforce with regards to the law?

AC, this is what is known as objective conjecture (as to what your agreement should look like) and is against the guidelines of the regulatory authorities. It is like saying 'please don't renew my credit license'. PM me, we're handling these differently

I kind of thought he'd covered the bare minimum. If it was an article of clothing, it would only just stop the wearer from blushing

Corn, it has to state: (a) the state of the account, and (b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and © the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor. So, a), b) and c) are covered. Not a WW special was it?

Totally off thread, (but this is a Corn thread, so what the hey?) I got a bloody NIC through the post today for doing 68mph in a 60 zone? What happened to 10% plus 2? I got done doing 58 mph in a 40 zone at 4 in the morning, OK 3 points. I then got done doing 99.6 on the M25, oops, slap on the wrist, 3 points. I then got done doing 91 mph - come on guys, that's taking the ****, 3 points. I then got done doing 95 mph and another 3 points.... My license has been clean for the first time in 11 years FOR ONE SNIVVELLY LITTLE MONTH and I get done again. I drive too quickly, I realise that, but 68 mph IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE ON THE A5 WITH NO HOUSES IN SIGHT AND NO TRAFFIC ON A STRAIGHT PIECE OF ROAD THAT IS DEAD STRAIGHT FOR ABOUT 4 MILES...... 68 MILES AN HOUR? Someone should tell them that the speed record for that straight is currently at 148!

That's what I took you to mean, and is why I posted what I did. IMO if they are stating that as the balance of your account, it is all of the more reason to contest it. If they cannot back it up (and they have to be able to substansiate it:) together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer I take this to mean that they can be asked to show how they have come to this sum by a judge if questioned (and possibly by you if you question it).

Oi Steady! We're not talking about one of the newer ones, we're talking about an old shape mark 2, the curvy pop up headlight one. And it was pretty new too! A f&*%£@g hairdresser, HAIRDRESSER! I got a good mind to jump in my car and come and bitchslap you!

How about if you're allegedly photographed in one county and then prosecuted by another county?

M55DLC is my reg number:cool: Or was until MOH wrote off the £17k worth of MR2 it was attached to! And I ain't camp!

I've just had a row with someone from the Halifax / BoS call centre over a Sainsburys card and she stated they are 'allowed' to call 5 times a day! When pushed she got shirty and hung up.

And they've just sent me one for 68 in a 60!

Or the pheasant plucker's son

FC, you missed the sarcasm.... I say again, I thought Paul asked for what a STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT should be, not what the KEY POINTS OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION (aka the prescribed terms) were. Paul is aware of what those are, as are you.

Oh, I took it to mean that Paul was asking for what a statement of account should contain (i.e. what is to be provided alongside the agreement) not what the agreement itself should contain to be a proper agreement.

Sections 77 to 79 are quite detailed as to what is required. I am aware of who posted the question and I think that, on reading the act, the specifics are listed in a reasonably straight forward manner. There are provisions for inconsistencies within the record keeping process and / or business model for different companies but, on the whole, there isn't a great deal of wriggle room.

I'm only making sure FC, and it was as a direct response to a direct question.

Here's chapter and verse for s128 of the Communications Act 2003: 128. Notification of misuse of networks and services (1) Where OFCOM determine that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has persistently misused an electronic communications network or electronic communications services, they may give that person a notification under this section. (2) A notification under this section is one which – (a) sets out the determination made by OFCOM; (b) specifies the use that OFCOM consider constitutes persistent misuse; and © specifies the period during which the person notified has an opportunity of making representations about the matters notified. (3) That period must not be less than the following – (a) in an urgent case, seven days; and (b) in any other case, one month. (4) A case is an urgent case for the purposes of subsection (3) if OFCOM consider – (a) that the misuse in question is continuing; and (b) that the harm it causes makes it necessary for it to be stopped as soon as possible. (5) For the purposes of this Chapter a person misuses an electronic communications network or electronic communications service if – (a) the effect or likely effect of his use of the network or service is to cause another person unnecessarily to suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety; or (b) he uses the network or service to engage in conduct the effect or likely effect of which is to cause another person unnecessarily to suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety. (6) For the purposes of this Chapter the cases in which a person is to be treated as persistently misusing a network or service include any case in which his misuse is repeated on a sufficient number of occasions for it to be clear that the misuse represents – (a) a pattern of behaviour or practice; or (b) recklessness as to whether persons suffer annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety. (7) For the purpose of determining whether misuse on a number of different occasions constitutes persistent misuse for the purposes of this Chapter, each of the following is immaterial – (a) that the misuse was in relation to a network on some occasions and in relation to a service on others; (b) that different networks or services were involved on different occasions; and © that the persons who were or were likely to suffer annoyance inconvenience or anxiety were different on different occasions. (8) If he considers that appropriate alternative means of dealing with it exists, the Secretary of State may by order provide that a use of a description specified in the order is not to be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as a misuse of an electronic communications network or electronic communications service

I know I may be going off on a tangent here, but: Complainant: Ofcom own-initiative investigation Investigation against: Persons or organisations causing annoyance to consumers through the making of silent or abandoned calls Case opened : 22 June 2006 Issue: Persistent misuse of electronic communications network(s) or service(s) Relevant instrument: Sections 128 to 131 of the Communications Act 2003 Update note – 30 January 2007 Ofcom has today imposed financial penalties on four companies under section 130 of the Communications Act 2003 (the “Act”). Penalty notices have been issued to Bracken Bay Kitchens Ltd, Space Kitchens and Bedrooms Ltd, Toucan Residential Ltd (formerly IDT Direct Ltd) and Carphone Warehouse plc, for contravening section 128 of Act by making an excessive amount of silent or abandoned calls. Silent calls can occur when automated calling systems used by call centres generate more calls than the available call centre agents can manage. When the person called answers the telephone and there is no agent available, the automated calling system abandons the call. This can result in the person called experiencing silence on the line when they answer the telephone. Ofcom has imposed the following penalties: Space Kitchens £45,000 Bracken Bay Kitchens £40,000 Carphone Warehouse £35,000 Toucan £32,500 The penalty notices have been issued following the four notifications of misuse of networks and services that Ofcom issued to these companies on 3 November 2006 (the “Notifications”). In the Notifications, Ofcom set out its findings that there were reasonable grounds to believe that each of these companies has engaged in persistent misuse of an electronic communications network or electronic communication services in a way that causes annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety to consumers. This conduct contravenes section 128(5)(a) and section 128(6)(a) of the Act. Ofcom's investigation found that some or all of these four companies had: Repeatedly exceeded the 3% limit for abandoned calls. Between April and July 2006 all four companies' abandoned call rates regularly exceeded 3% and in some cases were higher than 20%; Failed to include a recorded information message to prevent abandoned calls from being silent calls, during some or all of the period under investigation; Engaged in other forms of conduct which Ofcom considers contribute to the persistent misuse as set out in Ofcom Guidelines and specified in the notification issued to each company. The companies were given until 6 December 2006 to make representations in relation to the matters set out in the Notifications. Ofcom has now considered representations by each of the companies and has decided to issue a financial penalty in each case. The maximum financial penalty Ofcom can impose under section 130 of the Act is £50,000 per notification. In each of these four cases, Ofcom has imposed a penalty taking into account Ofcom's statement of general policy for determining penalties* and specifically considering: the steps taken by that company to bring the misuse to an end and ensure compliance; the representations made by that company; and the nature of the persistent misuse and the degree of unnecessary inconvenience, annoyance and anxiety that company's conduct caused consumers to suffer as a result of abandoned calls made by automated calling systems. Further details of Ofcom's consideration of the representations and factors to determine the penalties are included in the section 130 notices issued to each company, non confidential versions of which are being prepared and will be published on the Ofcom web site shortly. *For Ofcom penalty guidelines see: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/accoun/pg/ End of update note

What this means is the Debt collection agencies in question did not actually own the debt in the first place. Sit tight until the original creditor instigates a further DCA onto that particular debt. If they do re-assign it, send the CCA request to them too, and if they do the same thing (i.e. pass it back to the creditor) you have grounds to complain to the relevant authorities. What I would suggest you do is send a s77/8 request to the original creditors for those DCA's who dropped the cases, which will start the ball rolling at their end. If they have the agreements, at least you know where you're at, if they don't, I'm sure you understand the significance of that too. Remember to post what you get sent somewhere on CAG (less the personal info) and someone here will give you a heads up as to how legally binding they all are.

From the TPS website: Registration will also prevent organisations who regard you as a customer, or in the case of charities, donors from calling you again, unless you have previously told them that you have no objection to them calling you. I'm looking at the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 law at the moment, but this is specifically for DM. I know there is one out there for automated calling systems, which basically covers the frequency. I'm still looking..... Oh, and by the way, what I stated earlier about providing call frequencies and was told it was against the DPA: Tracing of malicious or nuisance calls 15. - (1) A communications provider may override anything done to prevent the presentation of the identity of a calling line where - (a) a subscriber has requested the tracing of malicious or nuisance calls received on his line; and (b) the provider is satisfied that such action is necessary and expedient for the purposes of tracing such calls. (2) Any term of a contract for the provision of public electronic communications services which relates to such prevention shall have effect subject to the provisions of paragraph (1). (3) Nothing in these Regulations shall prevent a communications provider, for the purposes of any action relating to the tracing of malicious or nuisance calls, from storing and making available to a person with a legitimate interest data containing the identity of a calling subscriber which were obtained while paragraph (1) applied.

Hope this answers your question: 78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a) the state of the account, and (b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and © the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.