Here we have an OP who has sent a CCA request to Robinson Way: Credit-card-dept. As we all know, when the account is not in the hands of the original creditor, the DCA or debt purchaser has to go back to them to get the documents. This has been posted to exhaustion.
The Consumer Credit Act says creditors have to respond to a CCA request within 12 working days (an extra two are allowed for service), however it’s physically impossible for them to send a copy of a document they haven’t got, so they write back to say that they are waiting for the original creditor. Nothing wrong with that, they know they can’t comply with the request and write to let you know they are still working on it. That’s what you would expect anyone to do, it’s not harassment or threats, it’s an update and the OP should be made to look at it in this way.
We also know about accounts becoming unenforceable while the creditor is in default of a CCA request, at least in principle. Here we have a clear example of a case where the OP wasn’t properly coached and the judge ruled against them despite the lack of compliance with a CCA request, because Nemesis was left in charge and he neglected to tell the OP what points she should be making in court: OP loses in court. One would think that, after being aware of that case, he wouldn’t just blindly repeat the mantra: “no agreement = no enforcement”.
In most cases, OPs really don’t want the creditor to comply with a CCA request precisely because, if they do, then the account could be enforceable (provided it’s not statute barred, of course, but that’s a different matter). That being the case, WHY would anyone want to complain to the FCA? Neither the FCA Handbook, nor the Consumer Credit Act, make contact unlawful whilst in default of a CCA request so what exactly would be the complaint about? Trying their best to comply with their duties and keeping the debtor informed of their progress? After all, the OP did ask for a copy of the agreement.
In his haste to make as many posts as possible and keep his elevated status, he resorts to nonsense like his response below, which he’d posted in response to the OP’s question earlier in the year. Apart from not even bothering to use uppercase letters where appropriate, his one liner doesn’t even make any sense.
Also note how he doesn’t mention anything about the fact that the OP reckons it’s SBd. As we all know (well, all but Nemesis), the default date on credit files has no bearing on limitation, a lot of people carry on making token payments or paying through a DMP for year after defaulting.
If the debt was actually statute barred, then the OP could send the statute barred letter. Unlike a CCA request which is a document asking for something from them, the SBd letter is for information purposes and creditors are not supposed to carry on demanding payment when they’ve been informed that the debt is SBd. Hassling a debtor for a SBd debt and demanding payment once they’ve been informed would be a reason to report them to the FCA, updating the requester of the status of their request is not.