cant just send in bailiffs no. end of the mater the judge has to agree to that. and i doubt he will. why doesn't he stick in an N245 and nail the LL in his box. what is this hearing for? scan the letter(s) variation of judgement or what?

std default defence cant hurt dx

lowells was statute barred! if the OC still owns a debt and you owe them, it's not SB'd in their books you cant get around that sadly the £69 payment was nothing to do with the scam debt they acquired (£PCM costs till end of contract) i cant see why you cant demand EE remove it , if they dont. its the least they can do for their error.

be careful under law...the RK is not necessarily the owner of a vehicle...

we have known for a very very long time that 9/10 the OC never knows IRRWW are chasing debtors nor in some cases even taking money from them that the OC never ever see!! IDRWW pockets it - free money - lets all go on a staff holiday. there was an article some years back whereby that quoted some +£4M debtors had paid to IDRWW on UAE debts that when contacted the originating banks knew nothing about....

let the ombudsman do their job. you'll win handsdown you dont obv owe OVO p'haps anything at all. dont worry about Past Due credit or any other DCA ( THEY ARE NOT BAILIFFS!) as for you being added to the debt, thats quite OK, you were a resident adult and equally liable under law. once you start getting things moving via the ombudsman dont forget to get your credit files cleansed of any negative data & seek compensation for distress etc, again the ombudsman should sort both out for you. as you are now NOT a customer of OVO, there is very very little they can do to you now.

DN is ok DCA NOA is ok, though not one from Newday saying they've sold it. agreement states esigned on a sunday at 11am?? really?? but no typed names or tick box nor any IP address used. if the date is correct then poss ok, it that your correct address for that time of take out? but if not, then that could simply be a copy of someone elses they've used with you details copy'n'pasted over theirs. the agreement details separate T&C's in at least 8.4. a full set of T&C containing your correct address for the time MUST be included. failure renders the agreement unenforceable... have you the T&C's too? dx

thread title updated

thread title updated

well we cant help you without information. we need to SEE the org TfL Letter and your reply. we also need to see the SJPN court forms upon WHAT you are ACTUALLY charged with and if there is a TIC List requiring your signature next to each journey and how many journey's are on the list? scan these upto ONE mass PDF read upload CAREFULLY. if your 'lie' of lost card is included in the court docs within a written statements , i can't see you escaping a criminal conviction...sorry. dx

thanks for the fuller story now... sadly on most assumptions you are wrong. i cant see you going anywhere with this . the file can appear twice on your file, but doesn't hurt you twice. OC's are not obliged to default a debt before sale (though if they dont - it renders the debt useless to a debt buyer) . thus Lowell just left it and in 2021 their entry fell off due to 6yrs of no reporting. lowell didn't 'write it off' its an automated CRA File process . The old EE entry was held on your file because of the AP markers, they are a real bugbear to any account and if its never defaulted can cause an account to show for 12yrs on cra files regardless to any balance or not. in your case its sadly somewhat immaterial that EE erroneously used AP, it appears it didn't actually harm you. you cleared the EE entry bal by paying £69 in 2022, that wouldn't have changed anything really. the AP markers held it on your file. so either EE now remove it or you await it's natural drop off 6yrs from the last AP mark.

i wonder what happened? dx

paying a debt off does not remove it from your credit file. if you paid the bal in 2022 whatever they've marked it with, it won't normally drop off until 6yrs from that date. we're not at that date yet. now if the AP markers hurt you is another matter, but typically NO they don't and you indicate no firm financial evidence they did. i'm not sure under what 'rules' what compensation or redress you think they owe you? ok they as well as you have wrongly concluded as its paid it should be removed. i will gather as the last 'movement' on the account was 2022 that's why the 3 CRA providers have not removed it. now EE could request that is done, but as far as i'm aware there's no remit that dictates the 3 CRa providers must. dx

yep sadly thats how people treat us after giving free advise...

dont need statements. nor std info sheets. EVERTHING else dx