Thread: Alliance & Leicester avoiding responsibility

It never rains it pours eh? Fresh from launching battles with Link Financial on a debt they shouldn't be handling -

(http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...check-out.html)

and then Alliance & Leicester kick off as well! CCA'd them about three months ago and along comes an agreement, all looks pretty good. I then notice there is no right to cancel box or information on my rights. It wasn't signed on their premises and no details were sent through afterwards explaining my rights (which actually woiuld have been useful as I was then offered a slightly better deal). I wasn't even sent an executed copy of the agreement after Alliance & Leicester completed the process but I can't remember if it was pre-signed by them or not, either way not as big an issue as the cancellation rights.

Sent them a letter asking for why they failed to do this and also asked for a Breakdown of the loan as I wanted to check the tolerances were correct. Had a few letters back, all promising to look into it and asking for patience whilst this is completed. In the meantime they send the occasional letter stating they've charged me £25 for not paying anything to them, the usual 'ignore the facts and bill the consumer' approach we're all familiar with. Fine, the account is in dispute whilst they do their thing. Out of the blue this morning comes a letter from Global debt management Services Ltd wanting the entire balance paid. Naughty naughty. So, instead of just dealing with the issue A&L decide to get heavy on a problem they've created.

Have just finished a letter reminding them of their breach of CCA 1974, OFT debt collection Guides, Data Protection Act and CPUTR. Looks as if I'm going to have to play hardball now which I didn't want. I was perfectly willing to negotiate with them and they choose the hard way!

Ok, am I correct in thinking the agreement has never actually been executed correctly due to this? If so I believe I'm entitled to the interest back on the loan as they had no right to apply it plus statutory interest? Agreement is quite a few years old so before April 2007 changes. Either way they're clearly spooked to have done this. Appreciate any feedback as ever