Hi, In answer to your question, Yes I am stating not saying that the debt does not belong to my O/H, we have disputed the alleged debt since 2006, requesting documented proof on numerous occasions but never produced. In 2008, a letter from [company 1] and their [solicitors 2] "LCS" [in house paralegals], re the alleged debt stated that the alleged debt was in fact a Credit Card from the Associates allegedly belonging to my O/H, the letter further stated they were in the process of informing their Solicitors "LCS" to take further court action unless payments were forthcoming. [solicitors 1] dissappeared??. I replied stating that the debt was as far as we were concerned in dispute and had been since 2006, requested documents have never been produced I stated that there would be no more correspondence from ourselves re the alleged debt, until production of the valid documents. In 2010 a stat demand came dated 13 days before the date they say it was delivered, but the details that were entered on it did not tally with the information held by me, EG: incorrect Company stating that they were the claimants, incorrect case Nos used re the judgment, incorrect reference No being used. It was because of the discrepancies I decided that they were just trying to get an initial payment on the alleged debt, Then we received a large bundle of papers the last letter being dated 1/4/2011 the first document dated 31/1/2011, the documents were from [solicitors 3], Welbeck Law LLP acting for [Company 2] who were in the process of obtaining a bankruptcy order, despite all the inconsistencies. Their witness statement stated that they had had dealings with the claim so far, which is an incorrect statement on their part, [money definately talks]. Scenario @ the moment is [ Company 1= Solicitors 1] still registered against property, [Company 1 = Solicitors 2 LCS] details that are on the court file when the case was transferred to "Reigate County Court" [Company 2 = Solicitors 3] , obtained bankruptcy order with incorrect details used. [Company 3 ] who have now been instructed to collect the outstanding alleged debt, according to their final response letter dated Oct 2012, whereby it took a complaint to the FOS to produce the final response letter, whereby it is admitted that an agreement has never been in their possession, [Company 3] instructed to collect the debt, surrendered their licence Aug 2010, so should not be active, and by their own admittance to the default judgment, surely this proves that incorrect and inappropriate deceitful actions have been used. I have since checked my O/H credit file whedreby there is nothing relating to a Solely owned debt at all, and no mention of a credit card in his name,I have now passed all information to the fraud squad as I feel that the whole thing from beginning to end although supposed to be in dispute actions were not stopped, CPR rules ignored and abused, CCA 1974 act Legislations to protect the consumer have not done anything to protect me and my O/H. I came across the inforfmation relating to s 127[3] of CCA 1974, which all solicitors and DCA would have known about, which If I could not have proven the alleged debt did not belong to my O/H, then I should have been able to use, as was stated within the Summary of "Wilson V First County Trust Ltd" [2003]UKHL 40.... The wilson case made it clear that in the event of no acceptable consumer credit agreementr, then the credito could not recover monies owing underf ordinary contract law, regardless of whether they could prove the debt existed or not.... This was the decision of the HOUSE OF LORDS and therefore should be binding in the court. The Law states that withou a prescribed agreement the courts MAY NOT enforce under s127[3] and.. 1] In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000]UKHL 27, LORD Hoffman said @ page1131.."Parliament intended that if a Consumer Credit Agreement was improperly executed then sunbject to the enforcement powers of the Court, the debtor should not have to pay... 2] Sir Andrew Morritt Vice Chancellor in Wilson V First County Trust Ltd[2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para26... in the case of an unenforceable agreement "The creditor must ... be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift of the monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part witrh the monieas in circumstances in which it was never intended to have them repaid. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead... in the HOUSE OF LORDS "Wilson v First County Trust Ltd"-[2003] All ER [D] 187 [Jul] paragraph 29.... "The Courts powers under sev tion 127[1] are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases... 1] first type is where S61[1][a], regarding signing of an agreement, is not complied with, In such cases the Court shall not make an enfoecement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor; S127[3] thus signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the Courts power to make an enforcement order. If the agreements are as I expect, unenforceable by Law or if no written agreement exists, then the claimant was in error when it ewas stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due to the claimant at the time the Bankruptcy Petition was issued. So after checking CRF whereby the alleged debt is not showing, as there is no solely owned debt in O/H name, the "Restriction" is still showing as is the charging order belonging to the Insolvency Practitioner, therefore O/H credit file has incorrect information entered. After trying all avenues of getting the alleged debt squashed re not O/H debt, but still falling upon deaf ears, have stated the 127[3] information, which quite clearly states "NO Agreement!" "No DEBT", but even the above has fallen on deaf ears, have been told that it no longer applies re the "Rankine" case , but the situation is for all pre 2006 agreements then s127[3] is applicable, but was repealed in the 2006 updated CCA. As I have had judges that do not like LIP's have exhausted nearly all my bridges, which certainly looks like I am going to lose the family home, because of "GREEDY LYING CHEATING LOWLIFES.... FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO CLAIM" WHICH AFTER a great deal of research has now been disclosed to the Fraud Squad for Investigation, has been sent to "Watchdog" revealing everything and all concerned have been named as conspiring to defraud, as the alleged debt does not belon g to O/H, and if it had then no agreement no debt. falling upon deaf ears, have stated the 127[3] information, which quite clearly states "NO Agreement!" "No DEBT", but even the above has fallen on deaf ears, have been told that it no longer applies re the "Rankine" case , but the situation is for all pre 2006 agreements then s127[3] is applicable, but was repealed in the 2006 updated CCA. As I have had judges that do not like LIP's have exhausted nearly all my bridges, which certainly looks like I am going to lose the family home, because of "GREEDY LYING CHEATING LOWLIFES.... FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO CLAIM" WHICH AFTER a great deal of research has now been disclosed to the Fraud Squad for Investigation, has been sent to "Watchdog" revealing everything and all concerned have been named as conspiring to defraud, as the alleged debt does not belong g to O/H, and if it had then no agreement no debt. , but even the above has fallen on deaf ears, have been told that it no longer applies re the "Rankine" case , but the situation is for all pre 2006 agreements then s127[3] is applicable, but was repealed in the 2006 updated CCA. As I have had judges that do not like LIP's have exhausted nearly all my bridges, which certainly looks like I am going to lose the family home, because of "GREEDY LYING CHEATING LOWLIFES.... FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO CLAIM" WHICH AFTER a great deal of research has now been disclosed to the Fraud Squad for Investigation, has been sent to "Watchdog" revealing everything and all concerned have been named as conspiring to defraud, as the alleged debt does not belong to O/H, and if it had then no agreement no debt. Went to Court this week to try and suspend the Vacation order upon the family home, had all the evidence to prove that the debt did not belong to O/H, and that it was disputed since 2006, and that it had been before the courts 3x obtaining the required default judgment without the need to produce a valid agreement, but the judge would not look at any evidence and would not grant the suspension on our property.# A creditor from a previous debt, which I duly paid for 13 years, but after attending court in 2005, whereby the company did not attend after explaining to the judge that I had paid the debt for the last 13 years, he replied that enough had been paid, and issued a “General Form of Judgment” Which stated upon the company not attending , the case is to be struck out, this was back in 2005, and have never had any correspondence with them since before the order was made, have now climbed out the woodwork and told the Insolvency Practitioners that a debt of £47,000 + is owing to them and that the loan I had from them was towards my Mortgage, have emailed the judgment order to them and the solicitors acting for 1st credit finance ltd, told them the loan was for £4,000 which was payable by 180 mts @ £74 per month, which I duly paid for 13 years, leaving approximately £2,000 when it was struck out. They have informed the I/P the drastic increase is due to interest that has accrued, this is not the case as all loans within the CCA 1974 below £5,000 does not qualify for interest to be added, the information I provided for the above has not been used to correct the claim at court whereby the judge is still under the assumption that the £47,000 is duly owing within my mortgage, but has blatantly refused my appeal, as the solicitors stated that an amount of £77,000 would be needed upon selling our property, which is pure rubbish, I have £21,000 owing on the mortgage and if you cancel the alleged debt and the crawler out the woodwork, our financial situation is way below £5,000 entered on our credit files. I am now having to appeal the decision made by the Distict Judge and hope that I get a circuit judge competent in CCA LAW

obliterated final respose pg 1 (1).pdf (497.6 KB) obliterated final respose pg 2.pdf (380.6 KB)

Hi, May 2006, we received a document from Land Registry, stating that an ICO had been applied for, and that a COPY of the ICO had been sent to them by the applicant should we wish to see it . Neither myself nor my O/ H were familiar with the Company or the Solicitors involved. We then received a letter from the solicitors acting on behalf of the Company, a few weeks later dated June 2006, upon reading the contents of the letter, we were disgusted to find that the alleged debt had already been before the courts on 3 separate occasions, without our knowledge. A FCO had been obtained just 5 days before the letter was drafted. Once again we were completely oblivious to the alleged debts existence. A sealed copy of the FCO had been enclosed within the letter, both the ICO and FCO were obtained Many many miles away, it also stated that an ICO had been obtained in April 2006, again without our knowledge. It also stated that a Default Judgment had been obtained back in 2005, by way of a MCOL, We have never seen any documentation for the Default Judgment , or the ICO order, to say I was fuming was an understatement. I sent a letter in reply, to all the comments within the letter, I stated that as far as we were concerned the alleged debt was nothing at all to do with myself or my O/H, I stated that they were the lowest form of life on earth after deceitfully obtaining judgment on an alleged debt, without any chance to enter a defence. I stated that I required valid documents to prove the ownership of the alleged debt and until the valid documents were produced the Debt would remain in dispute Letter Ping Pong with the company whereby in 2008, after receiving another letter, it was stated that the alleged debt was ascertaining to a "Credit Card" in my O/H name and with a company called the Associates. The letter then went on to state that as no payments had been made to reduce the debt, they were going to instruct their solicitors "LCS" to take further action through the courts, the letter went on to offer a consolidation loan which would be arranged by LCS. Once again a letter was sent in reply stating that as far as We were concerned the alleged debt was still in dispute, as the requested documentation back in 2006, had never materialised, and until the requested documentation was produced the debt would remain indefinitely in dispute. cutting A LONG STORY short, in 2010 a stat demand appeared for the alleged debt, but the information entered on the demand was totally different to the information I had on the Original documents, EG; Incorrect Company stated as the owners of the debt, incorrect Case Nos: and reference Nos: Used,, I thought that they were just trying to coerce me into making pmt on the alleged debt with their antics. I was also unable to understand why again another Solicitors were involved now acting for this other company who were claiming that the debt belonged to them. Contacted the Court re the claim no's and owners of the debt, Only to find that the case had been transferred to" Reigate County Court" and that they had got "LCS" as the Solicitors. I then explained that I had solicitors [1] and company[03752940] registered by way of a restriction against O/H beneficial interest since 2006, and they had got Company[03752940] and LCS as solicitors, and now 2011 lo and behold company No;[04140507] and Solicitors" Welbeck LAW LLP" WERE STATING IN THEIR STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE THE SOLICITORS WHO HAD BEEN DEALING WITH THE ALLEGED DEBT, AND HAD made a statement of truth to that effect. I was told by the lady at court that each time a new solicitor was engaged then the courts and myself should have been informed this was a requirement of CPR rules and practice directions as set out in the cca 1974 legislations. In 2011 we received a Bankruptcy order for my O/H, upon visiting the O/R we explained that the debt had been in dispute since 2006, and that a diferent Company and different solicitors had otained the Bankruptcy order, whilst the courts had a company and LCS as the solicitors. I had Company[03752940] and a completely different solicitor, registered against our property, I told the O/R that we had requested valid documentation re the alleged debt, but none had ever been produced. I stated that the alleged debt did not belong to my O/H, the O/R completely ignored the fact that the debt was disputed and that no valid documents had ever been produced, and when I asked him about the different companies involved and the different solicitors being used I was told that the companies were one and the same. upon quizzing him re the different claim no's being used I was told that it must just be an admin error, I stated that the charge was still against the property although a secured creditor should not be able to make you bankrupt, without giving up the security on the property. after phoning Companies House myself I was told that if each company had their own unique reg no then they were classed as separate entities, I told the O/R this and also told the Insolvency practitioners, but once again it fell on deaf ears. I got in touch with the FOS in October 2012, as I was fed up requesting valid documents, and the Insolvency Practitioners were being incooperative after I had an argument with them over data protection issues which were explained as small admin errrors, in which some of the documents in my husbands name have never been located, they stated in their next letter that all office staff had been told NOT to discuss annulment anymore as they were going ahead with the bankruptcy, this was purely a vexatious move on their part . The FOS contacted them and I am going to let you see their final response letter, which abuses most of the legislations within the CCA 1974 act, and completely goes against all the sanctions imposed upon them by the OFT in 2009, and have ignored and abused the CPR rules and directions that are in place to protect the consumer. The default judgment was obtained by deception by way of MCOL which states that the agreement is still needed at the court, hence we were not told of the alleged debt, as if a defence had been entered they would have had to produce the AGREEMENT. ALSO AFTER STUDYING THE CCA 1974 ACT FOR QUITE AWHILE I CAME ACROSS THE After requesting for valid documentation for an alleged debt in 2006,

Hi and sorry it was a long one.... I must state that whether the alleged debt " IS subject to a CCJ" it was obtained by deceit and an Abuse of CPR rules and practice directions, still withstands that all concerned have deceitfully conspired to defraud me of Monies , Property to which they are NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED, "No Original signed agreement" "therefore No Debt exists". Have enough evidence of the deceitful actions that the DCA's and their solicitors have colluded in order to Steal what is not rightfully theirs by the legislations governing "CCA 1974 Act" Consumer Law... 1] Abuse of Process and Cpr Rules and Practice directions.. 2] have denied O/H of his rights "HRA" Denied his rights to a defence (no prior documentation ) 3] No notification of change of solicitors, X 2 and LCS their paralegals, 4] No notification of transfer of case to a different court. 5] No letter before Action received 6] No original agreement in their possession 7] not refrained from action whilst a dispute in place 8] stating incorrect details on the Stat Demand form 9] using the insolvency regime as a debt collecting method 10] Not making sure the debtor is the correct owner of the debt before pursuing any further. 11] stating incorrect details in the Courts, in order to gain by misrepresentation of the facts. All the above can be verified by Original documentation in my possession, .... 1st ever correspondence re : alleged debt was .... 1] May 2006.......B136(CO) from Land Registry [Applicant enclosed a COPY of the ICO] stating should we wish to see it........ 2] June 2006....... Letter from Solicitors Acting for their client, states that the debt is owed by O/H this has never been proven although I have requested proof of ownership since my letter of reply.... which was 3] June 2006 reply letter sent to Solicitors requesting documentation 4] June 2006 Copy of FCO obtained 5 days before the solicitors letter, once again no prior documentation as to the Court Hearing at "Epsom County Court". 5] January 2008, letter from 1st credit Ltd, stating the Original Creditor and that it ascertained to a Credit Card belonging solely to O/H.(incorrect) A] Incorrectly stating that "LCS" are solicitors, [paralegals] B] No documentation/ Notification of transfer to a different Court C] No documentation / notification as to Change of Solicitors D] Stating that LCS would be applying to the Court Re; Possession of Property [incorrect details] used here to what Land Registry docs STILL ARE STATING... E] Demanding a phone call to a premium] States Incorrect creditor pay or secure compound for it to creditors satisfaction F] Already Secured by different solicitors, acting for different clients still registered as @ today’s date [ Secured Creditor Cannot obtain Bankruptcy Petition/order G] Address stated by Legal Collections Manager is the incorrect registered address for 1st Credit Ltd. Particulars of Claim....... H] states NOA was sent re assignment of debt, this is Disputed , O/H has never received a NOA, although statement re Various dates attempting to collect is true, [they failed to state despite requests for agreement on various dates they had not complied with my request. Due to the errors upon SD, I automatically thought it was being used purely as a scare tactic, which seemed to be the Norm with the majority of DCA's at the time. Documents have continuously been requested since 2006 up to and including August 2011 [solicitors reply], states within the 1st paragraph that Clients have also received similar document, and have asked the solicitors to provide a brief response to my request returned the fee of £1, and goes onto state that a [Written and signed document from O/H] in connection with request, also state that communications are to be with Trustees in Bankruptcy. October 2011 , Although having taken nearly 8 weeks to reply, although solicitors letter stated that they had been asked to reply on behalf of their client. A letter in reply to my S 77 78 79 request having kept the fee of a £1 , Incorrect Ref No: stated, and Headed "Connaught Collections" ... In reference to your recent letter reminded judgement obtained Dec 2005, and Have relied upon the Judgment rather than the agreement. Which was being Requested from O/C, will forward upon receipt, states that Connaught Collections are Now collecting the debt, although Bankruptcy order made Re: alleged debt May 2011, (No written Agreement No debt to answer for] Incorrect when stating Liquidated sum was owing on Bankruptcy Petition. "Connaught Collections " are stated as being a "Trading Style" of 1st Credit Ltd" YET have their own Registered Company NO ???. Have all documentation also from May 2011 up to Final Response letter October 2012 after intervention of FOS. I have now had a date in order to Hand over My HOME after 30 years, although I am the innocent party and O/H has never held a credit card in his name, and stressing to the O/R that the debt had been in dispute since 2006, he just seemed to ignore the fact that the debt has and was disputed, and still is a DISPUTED DEBT and No agreement being in the DCA’s possession, and entering “DISPUTED DEBT” on completing the necessary forms I HAVE all documentation re : "various advice centres" [to complex for them they said] Nottingham Law school .. who looked into the matter in detail have a detailed report from them, stating that I did have grounds for an annulment, and specifying the problem areas where I might not succeeded according to documentation used. Letters written to MP in connection with the problem, whose answer was to complete a Pro Bono application form in , but on visiting the Law Society and CAB, to help complete and refer my case, I was told that it was above their means, needed specialist solicitor, and that they do not refer to pro bono. Written correspondence from Community Legal Advice, who sent me a list of all the solicitors who deal with Legal Aid cases, upon telephoning them was told that they do not handle insolvency cases, or legal aid was not available for Insolvency cases. Email to the OFT re the matter and sanctions imposed, stating the case so far and the fact that despite the sanctions imposed , they are still continuing with their deceitful and borderline criminal collection activities, only received an acknowledgement email in return. So apart from the fact that O/H has never held a Credit Card in his name, and his credit file can verify this, and having explained all this to O/R, I /P, who are only bothered about increasing their charges and reaping the benefits. No conscience just get rich quick motto applying here, and after a serious complaint re the “DPA” and the I/P I was then sent a snotty letter stating, That all office staff have been told “No Further discussion re “Annulment” they are now proceeding with the bankruptcy, this was because of my complaints important documents being sent to the wrong people, and was classed by them as a small administration error, a copy would be sent immediately, but they could not tell me where O/H document had gone. I have explored as many options as I can , have scoured different forums , registered with the majority of them, to gain more background on CCA 1974 ,Consumer Law, but cannot deal with applying myself as a litigant in person, for health reasons . NO IDEA where to go next. I have been on health related benefits since 1995, and for the last 18 months there has been a definite deterioration in my health , it is now effecting my nerves causing severe depression, which is tearing My Family apart, as they see my health conditions escalating. I have struggled to keep the mortgage up to date y way of my health benefits from 1995 to 2009. Having struggled so much to pay the Mortgage upon the family Home . I feel that with all the changes to the CCA 1974, 2006 amendments , whereby they have been amended as they state “ for the protection of the Consumer and their legal rights” I do honestly feel LET DOWN by the whole situation, and that the DCA’s are a Law to themselves, with no boundaries or action being administered. 　 I am not and will not sit back and let them STEAL/ TAKE WHAT LEGALLY THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO. My Home is my Castle, and was purchased with my children’ and grandchildren’s inheritance. I will not be robbed of this and am unable to let this matter go, I am spending 18 + hrs a day/night, researching the CCA 1974, and the legalities involved but am Now becoming Desperate as to where I go next with this matter, as the DCA's and solicitors involved have conspired and colluded with the utmost deceit to obtain what they are not and never have been LEGALLY ENTITLED TO.......... junkimunki

Hi everyone, O/H has been made bankrupt for an alleged debt that he know nothing about. Quick Timeline oif Events.... May 2006... Alleged debt was 1st brought to his attention by way of a B136(CO) after an ICO was granted in April 2006, application to register a *Restriction against O/H's B.I. in our property *[Restriction = Solely owned debt on jointly owned property], it further stated that a Copy of the ICO had been sent to them by the applicant should He wish to see it. The B136(CO) was the first time the alleged debt was brought to his attention. June 2006.... Solicitors letter re: the non payment of the alleged debt, within the 1st paragraph I was disgusted and appalled that the alleged debt had already been the subject of the Courts on 3 separate occasions, none of which O/H had any prior notification or documentation of. It was stated that the alleged debt was the subject of a Judgment by default obtained @ NCCBC by way of a MCOL, No prior knowledge therefore No defence submitted, and judgment granted, it was then stated that an ICO had been granted in April 2006 @ Epsom County Court, once again this was obtained by default, as no prior documentation/ notification was received. Neither myself nor my O/H has seen any documentation as at todays date for the above 2 court claims, although a COPY of the ICO was sent to the Land Registry Dept . The letter then stated that a FCO had been obtained, whereby I noticed that the FCO had only been obtained 5 days before this letter, once again this was obtained by default as no defence was entered, The FCO was obtained at Epsom County Court, whereby it stated on the order , upon hearing the solicitor for the claimant, and there being no appearance by the defendant therefore No Notice of Objection filed. There would not be any appearanvce by the Defendant as the defendant was totally unaware of any court action taking place neither did he have any knowledge of the alleged debt. I replied in writing to the solicitors, and stated that neither myself nor O/H acknowledged any debt owing to themselves or their clients,I stated that I was appalled sgusted to learn that the alleged debt had already been the subject of 3 court claims of which each one was granted by default, no prior documentation or notification of the alleged debt had been received by O/H. I finally requested that before any discussion of repayments would be entered into, i requested signed valid documentation re : the alleged debt be produced as soon as possible, as he does not acknowledge any debt with their clients or themselves and trust that this request will be given a speedy response. Until the production of the requested documents are received, The alleged debt is disputed and will remain as such until the production of the requested documents. June 2006, up to and including October 2006, I played letter Ping Pong, requesting on various occasions that the requested documentation re: the alleged debt be produced as the debt was still in dispute as far as I was concerned until the production of the said documents were produced. I did find that the alleged debt was for a credit card with the Associates Capital Corporation. This confirmed that the alleged debt did not belong to O/H. Nov 2010.. Stat demand dated as above but date was a Saturday, the demand was not personally served or was not sent by registered/recorded delivery, It had been posted through letterbox, but I am uncertain of the date it came. Upon reading the SD I noticed quite a few inaccuracies stated, eg: incorrect Claimant , incorrect Court Claim No entered, stated that payment was due immediately, and to the extent the sum demanded was secured. I had not seen any documentation re the Judgment or the ICO, so would not know exactly what the judgment had stated. I also noticed that the reference No: was entirely different to the one used prior to the SD. I naturally assumed that with all the inacuracies that the SD was a tactic in order to come to some arrangement of repayment, as far as I was concerned no production of the requested documents had been complied with therfore the debt remained in dispute . I then received a bundle of papers dated 1st April, they had come by normal postal service, on opening the letter, It was from Different Solicitors acting for a dufferent claimant, than what was entered on the B136(CO), and which were still registerd with Land Registry. Anyway cutting a long story short, Incorrect claimant and solicitors obtained BO May 2011, notified by Solicitors letter enclosing copy of B/O dated June 2011. O/R visit whereby explained incorrect claimant and solicitors obtained BO, but the alleged debt had been in dispute since June 2006, and had not produced any valid documentation re ownership of the alleged debt. I had received No NOA, No Default Notice, No valid documents, No Notice of change of solicitors , of which 3 had been used. Wrote a letter to Solicitors (3) stating that the debt had been disputed since 2006, with requests for documents on various occasions being totally ignored, therefore I enclosed the £1 fee and requested documentation re S77,78,79 of the CCA 1974 Act, and stated that the requested documents be produced within the time allowed, I also stated that a copy of the letter and the appropriate fee had been sent to 1st Credit Ltd. Letter in reply bfrom solicitors stating a hand signed document be sent to them stating that discussion could go ahead with my O/H, therefore they were not able to honour my request and returned the fee. they also stated correspondence would be with the I/P. Letter in reply to my CCA request from 1st credit Ltd, was by way of Connnaught Collections, stating in reference to my cca request, they reminded me that a judgment had been obtained in 2005, and would be relying upon the judgment rather than the original agreement, that they now confirm that they have requested from Original Creditor, and will forward these as and when they arrive. A final response after intervention by FOS in Sept 2012, 18 mths after B/O for the production of valid documentation re the alleged debt, met with a final response Letter dated October 2012 with a different ref No and from 1st Credit Ltd, stated 2005 judgment obtained, , that they had purchsed the Account from associates Nov 2003 and were the legal owners, stated a NOA had been sent(disputed) and that a FCO had been obtained Jun 2006 @ Epsom County Court, (obtained by default,) and then stated that a B/O against me had been obtained MAY 2011. August 2011, state thay received my cca request, whereby they requeste the documents from O/C, and are sorry at the amount of time this is taking, but as stated in their previous letters they are relying on the judgment not the agreement which they have not got in their possession. That said they have now paseed the debt to connaught Collections to collect the amount overdue. The alleged debt is not stated upon O/H Credit ref, there is no solely owned debts showing at all. After researching the CCA 1974 and the companies involved x3 and the solicitors x3, I have come across legislation by way of 127(3) pre 2006 agreements, and also the "Wilson V first County Trust Ltd" where it is stated that " If No written agreement exists, then the RESPONDENT was in error when it stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due at the time the BP was issued. Lord Nichiolls of Birkenhead in The House Of Lords para 29... states The Courts Powers under S127(1)are subject to significant qualification in 2 types of cases. [1st type].. is where S61(1)(a), regardig signing of agreements, is NOT COMPLIED with.In such cases the Court shall NOT make am enforcement order unless a document whether or not in the prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms was signed b y the debtor. S127(3) Thus signatures of a document containing all, the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the courts power to make an enforcement order. In the case of Dimond V Lovell [2000] UKHL,27 Lord Hoffman said at page 1131; "Parliament intended that if a Consumer Credit Agreement was improperly executed then subject to the enforcement powers of the court the debtor should not have to pay. Summary of.." Wilson V First County Trust Ltd"(2003) UKHL 40.... The wilson case made it clear that in the event of NO acceptable Consumer Credit Agreement then the Creditor COULD NOT RECOVER monies owed under ordinary contract Law regardless of whether they could prove the debt existed or not--- This was the decision of the House Of Lords and should therefore be bindiing in this court.... I am still disputing the debt as no solely owned debt appears on ny credit ref document dated June 2011, but if all else fails the CCA Law regarding agreements pre 2006, states NO agreement No Debt.# I have their Final Response Letter stating That they are NOT IN POSSESSION of the agreement, and are reying on the judgment instead, which was obtained by an Abuse of the Requirements of the Civil Procedure rules CPR Paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 says .. 7.3.. where a claim is based upon a written agreement (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the ORIGINALS should be available at the hearing. However another Practice direction states... A copy of the Contract document does not need to be attached if the claim is made by MCOL.... HOWEVER, the requirement to produce the ORIGINAL IN COURT IS STILL VALID... All The above were valid researched information that I was going to use in my application for an annullment, on the basis of it should have never been allowed, re no original documentaion, being the secondary point. the First point was that the alleged debt does not belong to myself, No acknowledgement of debt or claimant by me. After arguing with the O/R re disputed debts and the I/P for errors that were made re the DPA within the letters that were sent , whereby it was stated that they were small admin errors... "Identity fraud springs to mind "............ but after critisising their errors , I THEN RECEIVED A LETTER STATING THAT ALL STAFF WITHIN HER OFFICE HAD BEEN TOLD NOT TO DISCUSS ANNULLMENT AS THE BANKRUPTCY WAS GOING AHEAD. I AM A DISABLED MOTHER GRANDMOTHER, AND HAVING RESEARCHED INTO THIS STILL tHINK THAT THE BANKRUPTCY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE, AND THAT the DCA's and solicitors Involved (well aware of the CCA Legislations) have conspired to DEFRAUD myself and my O/H of our family home. WHICH THE i/P AND SOLICITORS HAVE OBTAINED A COURT ORDER FOR VACATION OF THE PROPERTY BY 19th March, as the amount of Equity is near to £100.000, with a nominal £20,000 left to pay to our mortgage company. The Majority of the Mortgage payments since 1997 to 2009 where paid by my O/H by way of her Monthly Health related benefits consisiting of High Rate Mobility Allowance and DLA payments . I feel that the O/R should have looked into all this when told about the disputed debt, and there being no valid agreement in their possession, the DCA'S INVOLVED HAVE COLLUDED AND CONSPIRED KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THE DEBT WAS UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND THAT THEY REALLY DID NOT HAVE A CLAIM ON THE PROPERTY. i HAVE TRIED EVERYWHERE i CAN IN ORDER TO GET THE BANKRUPTCY ANNULLED BUT EVERYWHERE I GO FOR ADVICE AND HELP, AFTER SEEING ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION FROM 2006 TO PRESENT DAY, THEY STATE THAT THE CASE IS Far to complex for them, and I should really be looking for a specialist solicitor dealing in Consumer Law and CCA 1974, 2006 acts. The I/P are escalating their duties and have also vastly uncreased their price, which if it rises anymore will almost certainly mean the Loss of My home through the Deceipt and corruption used by the DCA/s Involved, WHO WERE FINED A TOTAL OF £50,000 IN 2009 FOR THEIR "UNFAIR COLLECTION ACTIVITIES, AND VEXATIOUS ACTIONS, WHICH HAS CAUSED ME SEVERE DEPRESSION , AND A DRASTIC DETERIOTION TO MY HEALTH. hAS CAUSED MY FAMILY A VAST AMOUNT OF UNDUE STRESS AND IRRITABILIY THE ABOVE ACTIONS HAVE COMPLETELY TAKEN OVER MY LIFE SINCE THE BANKRUPTCY ORDER WAS MADE, i AM NOW GETTING DESPERATE AS TO WHAT ACTION ITAKE AND WHERE i CAN GET THE SPECIALIST HELP NEEDED, AND WOULD HOPE THAT IN VIEW OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, OR QUESTIONED, AND i FEEL THAT THE COMPANIES AND SOLICITORS INVOLVED SHOULD PAY WHAT EVER IS OWING SPECIALIST HELP NEEDED ASAP Idid inform the OFT re the DCA's deceitful and vexatious actions of the DCA's conspiracy to defraud knowing full well that the debt was not legally their/s and which they had no claim on whatsoever

Cai finance hit the scenes when 1st credit (finance) 5 Ltd went down, Companies House Web Check

check this out SHARE Summary Director Summary Company Summary / Appointments [*]Accounts Key Financials Downloads Accounts Table [*]Credit Risk Risk Score Credit Limit Payment Data Key Factors [*]Charges Mortgages and Charges County Court Judgements [*]Directors Directors and Secretaries Employees [*]Structure Shareholders Ultimate Parent Company Subsidiaries [*]Documents Company Documents [*]Feedback Director Summary Director Overview Najib Nathoo holds 10 current appointment, has resigned from 39 companies and held appointments at 7 dissolved companies. Najib began their first appointment at the age of 32 and their longest current appointment spans 17 years and 10 months at PUDELAJTAS LIMITED. The combined cash at bank value for all businesses where Najib holds a current appointment equals £11,544,092, with a combined assets value of £68,321,443 and liabilities of £52,451,066. Roles associated with Najib Nathoo within the recorded businesses include: Company Secretary, Director Registered Details Short name Najib Nathoo Year of Birth: 1963 Director ID: 908921323 Registered Address 9 Berkeley Street 2nd Floor London United Kingdom W1J 8DW Directorships 10 current appointments 39 resigned appointments 7 dissolved appointments Company Summary Created with Highcharts 3.0.9Chart context menuValuesDirector AppointmentsBISHOP INVESTIGATIONS & SECURITY SERVICES LIMITEDFIRST CALL-ACCIDENT ASSISTANCE LIMITEDPUDELAJTAS LIMITEDFINANCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDAON WARRANTY LIMITEDN.H. GLOBAL INVESTMENTS LIMITEDACCIDENT ASSISTANCE LIMITEDCONSOLIDATED INSURANCE GROUP LIMITEDAON WARRANTY MARKETING LIMITEDLGH WARRANTY GROUP SERVICES LIMITEDNLN ASSOCIATES LTDCONSOLIDATED MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCECOMPANY LIMITEDPOTCAKES LIMITED1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) 2 LIMITED1ST CREDIT (CONSULTING) LIMITEDDELIVERY AND COLLECTIONS SERVICES LTDEDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL (PORTFOLIOMANAGEMENT) LIMITED1ST CREDIT (MANAGEMENT) LIMITEDEDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LIMITEDEDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDHOUND DOG COMMUNICATIONS LIMITEDMIDDLECO LIMITEDCSA (SERVICES) LTD1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) 4 LIMITEDCAI FINANCE LIMITED1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) 3 LIMITEDROBINSON WAY LIMITEDGE KEYNES HOLDINGS LIMITEDCONNAUGHT COLLECTIONS UK LIMITEDLEWIS DEBT SERVICES LIMITEDSCOTTISH BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION LIMITEDTHE LEWIS GROUP LIMITEDHOIST FINANCE UK LIMITEDCREDIT SERVICES ASSOCIATIONCASH FLOW SERVICES LIMITED1ST CREDIT (HOLDINGS) LIMITED1ST CREDIT (ACQUISITIONS) LIMITED1ST CREDIT (INVESTMENT) LIMITED1ST CREDIT (FUNDING) LIMITEDC L FINANCE LIMITED1ST CREDIT LIMITED1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) LIMITED199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016 Company NameCompany StatusPositionAppointedResignedDissolved BISHOP INVESTIGATIONS & SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED Company is dissolvedCompany Secretary19/12/200520/11/200809/2010BUY NOW FIRST CALL-ACCIDENT ASSISTANCE LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector06/06/199731/01/199903/2010BUY NOW PUDELAJTAS LIMITED Converted / ClosedDirector02/04/1996--BUY NOW FINANCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector02/04/199631/01/1999-BUY NOW AON WARRANTY LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector02/01/199831/01/199908/2004BUY NOW N.H. GLOBAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector04/05/2000-06/2004BUY NOW ACCIDENT ASSISTANCE LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector06/06/199731/01/199903/2010BUY NOW CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE GROUP LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector02/04/199631/01/1999-BUY NOW AON WARRANTY MARKETING LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector02/01/199831/01/199908/2004BUY NOW LGH WARRANTY GROUP SERVICES LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector02/01/199831/01/199901/2009BUY NOW NLN ASSOCIATES LTD Company is dissolvedDirector28/04/1999-06/2004BUY NOW CONSOLIDATED MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector02/04/199631/01/199906/2004BUY NOW POTCAKES LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector02/10/200902/10/200907/2012BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) 2 LIMITED Company is dissolvedCompany Secretary03/12/200325/05/200501/2014BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (CONSULTING) LIMITED Company is dissolvedCompany Secretary14/01/200225/05/200509/2010BUY NOW DELIVERY AND COLLECTIONS SERVICES LTD Company is dissolvedCompany Secretary17/04/200325/05/200509/2010BUY NOW EDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL (PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT) LIMITED Company is dissolvedCompany Secretary17/04/200325/05/200509/2010BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (MANAGEMENT) LIMITED Company is dissolvedCompany Secretary14/01/200225/05/200509/2010BUY NOW EDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LIMITED Company is dissolvedCompany Secretary17/04/200325/05/200501/2012BUY NOW EDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Company is dissolvedCompany Secretary17/04/200325/05/200501/2012BUY NOW HOUND DOG COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector03/01/2012--BUY NOW MIDDLECO LIMITED Financial Statements too oldDirector12/08/2011--BUY NOW CSA (SERVICES) LTD Active - Accounts FiledDirector25/02/200408/02/2010-BUY NOW BISHOP INVESTIGATIONS & SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector19/12/2005-09/2010BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (MANAGEMENT) LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector14/01/2002-09/2010BUY NOW DELIVERY AND COLLECTIONS SERVICES LTD Company is dissolvedDirector17/04/2003-09/2010BUY NOW EDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL (PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT) LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector17/04/2003-09/2010BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (CONSULTING) LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector14/01/2002-09/2010BUY NOW EDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector17/04/200301/03/201101/2012BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) 2 LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector03/12/200301/03/201101/2014BUY NOW EDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Company is dissolvedDirector17/04/200301/03/201101/2012BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) 4 LIMITED Non tradingDirector06/04/201001/03/2011-BUY NOW CAI FINANCE LIMITED Non tradingDirector06/04/201001/03/2011-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) 3 LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector10/03/200901/03/2011-BUY NOW ROBINSON WAY LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector10/11/2012--BUY NOW GE KEYNES HOLDINGS LIMITED Financial Statements too oldDirector02/04/199631/01/1999-BUY NOW CONNAUGHT COLLECTIONS UK LIMITED Voluntary LiquidationCompany Secretary23/12/200520/11/2008-BUY NOW CONNAUGHT COLLECTIONS UK LIMITED Voluntary LiquidationDirector23/12/200501/03/2011-BUY NOW LEWIS DEBT SERVICES LIMITED Non tradingDirector08/08/2013--BUY NOW SCOTTISH BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION LIMITED Non tradingDirector08/08/2013--BUY NOW THE LEWIS GROUP LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector08/08/2013--BUY NOW HOIST FINANCE UK LIMITED Active - Newly IncorporatedDirector22/11/2012--BUY NOW CREDIT SERVICES ASSOCIATION Active - Accounts FiledDirector14/06/200308/02/2010-BUY NOW CASH FLOW SERVICES LIMITED Non tradingDirector08/08/2013--BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (HOLDINGS) LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector04/01/200201/03/2011-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (ACQUISITIONS) LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector27/10/200401/03/2011-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (HOLDINGS) LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledCompany Secretary04/01/200225/05/2005-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (ACQUISITIONS) LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledCompany Secretary27/10/200425/05/2005-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (INVESTMENT) LIMITED Non tradingDirector26/11/201004/08/2011-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (FUNDING) LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledCompany Secretary27/10/200425/05/2005-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (FUNDING) LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector27/10/200401/03/2011-BUY NOW C L FINANCE LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector08/08/2013--BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector15/04/199901/03/2011-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledDirector13/12/200101/03/2011-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledCompany Secretary15/04/199925/05/2005-BUY NOW 1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) LIMITED Active - Accounts FiledCompany Secretary14/12/200125/05/2005-BUY NOW What is included in the Director Risk Report for Najib Nathoo? In addition to the basic free company details, for £10 you can get 30 days access to full credit data for each of Najib Nathoo's current, resigned and dissolved companies including: Accounts - Graphed Key Financials, Accounts Tables and original Companies House Accounts downloads. Credit Risk - Current and Previous Risk Scores, Credit Limits, Payment History plus key influential Risk Factors CCJs - Paid and outstanding County Court Judgements, Mortgages and Charges registered against Najib Nathoo's companies Directors - Directors and Company Secretaries appointed to any of Najib Nathoo's companies Group Structure - Shareholders, parent companies and subsidiaries of companies associated with Najib Nathoo Companies House Documents - Download any official document filed at Companies House for each of Najib Nathoo's companies What's the difference between a Director Report and a Pro subscription? Our Pro subscription plan gives you unlimited access to every Director Report and Company Report in the UK, for a fixed price of £20 per month. If you only require access to this one director, you can choose the Buy Now pay as you go option, to get unlimited access to this one page for a one off payment of £10. You will also have the option to upgrade your 30 days single access to 12 months for an additional £20 - look for the upgrade option. Where do the director details come from? The information on this page is sourced from public records held at Companies House and other official sources. Visit our Listing Policy and FAQ for further information. Get FREE alerts when this page changes! Don't forget to use our free Director Watch service to receive email alerts when there are changes to Najib Nathoo 's Director Report, including appointments to new companies or resignations. Plus instant alerts when new documents and accounts filed at Companies House for any associated companies, or when a company is closed down or a Risk Score changes. Never miss a change again! Simply click 'Watch this company' at the top of any page. FINGERS IN MANY MANY PIES SOMETHING NOT ADDING UP ERE the conglomerates of !st credit have all changed their registered address to Reigate for some reason ???????

Hi, just come across you dilema and dont know if this information would benefit you, daughter purchased a Toshiba latop from PC World and a few days after warranty ran out it developed a fault and stopped working, Daughter had a diagnostic on it and it stated that a chip had burnt out near the jackplug. PC World refused to even look at it cos of the warranty. It has no hard drive in it but remains in as new condition still in its original box, daughter was quite upset as she paid just under £700 for it. Then approximately 2 years ago I came upon this information, had alraedy had the diagnostic report ascertaining a burnt out chip, this I found was a Generic Fault found in certain laptops. If you click on the generic name it will take you to the forums, it doesn 't matter how old the Laptop is just so long as you act within 6 years of acknowledging the fault. Have a good search round the forums and it will state all the models that are effected, my daughters was a HP toshiba DV9500 and is one of the worst effected, hope this info proves valuable for you Index page • The Nvidia Defect Forum http://www.nvidiadefect.com/‎[/url] Cached Similar junkimunki x

Hi, Had a new meter fitted by BG on Sunday 3/02/2008, had to ring BG 2days later as I had credited £19.00 to the meter and had used 103.56 kwh, was advised by BG to do a 7 day meter test, thid I did and rang the results into them, I phoned BG with a read out on the 13/02/2008, 10 days usage amounted to £55 accepted to meter and 421.33 kwh used. This equates to a daily amount of £5.50p per day and a usage of 42.13 kwh per day. After discussing fuel tariffs and prices with my daughter, and studying her bills and usage over the last year, I was shocked to see that her annual cost for the year was approximately £700 with an annual usage of 4778 kwh, this was based on a standard pay as you go tariff singlerate plus standing charge. I had the meter removed on the 1/2/2013, with a single rate meter being installed, after taking a final reading before the meter was removed I have now calculated that in 4yrs, I have credited an amount of £5372 thru the meter, with a total of 45251.05 kwh being used this means an annual consumption of 11312.77 kwh @ 942kwh per month @ 235.6kwh per week which wors out at an average of 33.67 kwh per day. At a cost of £5372.00, which equates to £1343.00 per annum, a monthly cost of £111.92p, jsut for electricity usage although I had been on the Essentials Tariff and dual fuel discount from March 08 up to and includng July 2012. After collec,ting my old statements covering the period, I did some calculations and found that 08/09 was missing, but a statement for July 09- July 10 ,had a usage of 9,985kwh and had been calculated on the "Standard Tariff" not the Essentials tariff, May10 -May 11, had a usage stated as 8,230.57 kwh calculated at the Essentials Tariff Rate,and Aug 11 -Aug 12had a usage of 7156.07, this again was calculated using the Standard pay as you go rate and not the essentials rate. This amounted to a total of 25371.64 kwh, thus leaving a deficit of 19879.41 Kwh to be used for the missing year 08-09 where I was on the essentials tariff, as of March 08, and the period of Aug 12 - Feb 13, to be split between 18 months which equates to 1104.42 per month, surely this cannot be correct.

Due to long standing issues with Eon in 2007, I decided to change my supplier I was already a customer with British Gas, contacted them re supplying my Electricity, told them that they were already supplying my gas by way of a pre-payment meter, and that my electricity was also by way of a pre-payment meter. I was told i would receive notification of a change over date within a few days,I had received a letter from BG a few weeks earlier regarding a new tariff they had introduced in March 2007 it was called the "Essentials Tariff" and upon satisfying certain conditions afaer receiving the completed registration form BG would apply this new tariff. I returned the completed registration form, and then received a letter to say that they would be supplyiing my Electricity as from 25/08/2007, having received no key from BG, I was still using my old key, having contacted BG re my problem I was told a Key would be sent within a few days, but did not receive anything. I kept a record of all my the payments made on my old key, as from the 25/09/2007 up to and including 31/12/2007, I had credited £284 using my old key. during the dates stated. After issues regarding the amount I was crediting to my electricity BG informed me that they would be changing my pre-payment meter as from Sunday 3/02/2008. I had to contact BG 2 days after the new meter had been fitted as I had credited £19 in 2days and had a usage showing of 103.56 kwh ,it was suggested that I conduct a 7 day meter test after which I should contact BG with the results. I was shocked to find that from[midday] 03/02/2007 up to and including 13/02//2007, I had credited my meter with a total of £55 and had used a total of 421.33 kwh. I then recv'd a letter from BG dated 6/02/2007, the letter stated that Since 15th Jan a total of 776 kwh had been used presumably this was used from 15/01/2008 up to 03/02/2008 and was related to the old meter, this meant that in 19 days I had used 776 kwh, I had also noted that I had credited an amount of £284, from 25/09//2007 up to and including 31/12/2007. Upon telephoning BG with my results and concerns I relayed my meter readings to them , and that I stiil felt that the readings and figures I had, were quite excessive in comparison to other family members and companies, I was assured that the readings and figures given were correct. I then rcv,d a letter from BG dated July 2008, apologising for not updating my meter with the details for the "Essentials tariff" over the last few months, apparantley I had qualified for this tariff back in Feb 2008, but had been paying for the "Standard British Gas pay as you Energy tariff", an identical letter was also enclosed stating all details except it was for my electricity meter. Cutting a long story short.. Since Sunday 03/02/2008 up to and including 27/07/2012, I had been on the Essentials Tariff, which would end on the 27/07/2012, but a new scheme "Warm Home Discount Scheme" to register it required you to complete a form and return within 21 days choosing either "yes" or "no" for all questions,this I completed and returned on 26/06/2012, upon qualifying a discount of £130 would automatically be applied to your electricity meter before 31/03/2013. As from 27/07/2012 BG automatically moved me onto their "Standard Tariff" and details of the tariff had been printed on the back of the letter. "Standard Tariff" from 27/07/2012 up to and including 31/01/2013, I had noticed a vast difference in the amount of cash I was crediting to my meter after being moved onto the above tariff, I was discussing this with my daughter a few days before xmas, whereby she told me she had just received her £130 credit, I asked if she had noticed a difference with the amount she was crediting to her meter, which I discovered was nowhere near the amount I had been crediting. I decided to do a meter Comparison check with my daughters pre-payment meter, it was at this time I discovered that I had a lot more screens showing on my meter, than she did, after telephoning BG re my missing £130 discount, i was told that they had not received my form, and that it was now to late to obtain the £130 discount for 2012/2013, I stated that the completed form was sent to them, and that they also knew that I had been on Health Related Benefits since qualifying for the "Essentials Tariff" in 2007/2008, I was told there was nothing that could be done as the closing date had already gone. I then stated that I had been comparing my usage and costs with that of my daughters and found that I was crediting nearly twice as much cash to my meter and was also according to my annual statements using a great deal more electric. After relaying my meter readings to the BG operator, I was informed that I was actually on an Economy 7 meter and was also on a two tier rate, instead of the Single Rate, I stated that BG had installed the meter on 03/02/2008, and that i had contacted them 2 days after with regards to the amount I had credited within 2 days and after doing a 7 day meter check was told that it was ok. It was arranged that an engineer would call within 2 days and change the meter, but on arriving the engineer stated that the meter did not want changing as it was only the rate that needed changing, after the engineer had been took a reading immediately after he left and compared it to a reading i had taken just before he came. I decided to do a 7 day meter test once again, but after crediting my meter suddenly found that it had reverted back to the 2 tier rate again, after ringing BG again I was told that the engineer should have changed the meter completely, this was arranged to take place on 01/02/2013, once again I took a reading immediatelybefore the engineer came, and then did a meter check over the next 14 days. After comparing all my meter readings and annual statements for which I have 2 each year covering different months but same years [confusing i know] one statement stating next years usage [standard tariff] and the other covering different months but same year stating [essential tariffs], was told by BG they could not explain why this had happened, and that i was definately being billed for the essential tariff, I once again compared my readings against my daughters as she had been on the same tariffs as me but with a differnt supplier, I was appalled to find the following... New meter installed Sunday 03/02/2008, but instead of a Single rate tariff being used, I found that a 2 tier rate and night rate had been programmed onto the meter, this 2 tier rate and night rate was still in use up to and including 01/02/2013. After studying my readings from the meter I was shocked to find that since 03/02/2008 up to and including 01/02/2013, I had actually credited through my meter £5344, and had usage of 45251.05 kwh, the following is the actual reading immediatley before an engineer completely changed my meter.. A... £003.31 B.. 00000 C... 07.57 rate1 D... 01.02.13 r1 E... £05372 accepted F... £ 001.19 ch/wk G.. 45251.05 kwh H.. 36884 r1 I.. 017.79 p per kwh r1 J... o8366 kwh r2 K 007.14 p per kwh r2 the above details was the last reading I took before the new meter was fitted... the following details were taken from the new meter, immediately after installation.... A... £9.76 E B.. .£002 charge E... Accepted £000000 F.. £001.73 ch/wk G..00002.29 kwh H.. 00002 r1 kwh I... 11.53p per kwh r1 And the following reading was taken on 05/02/2008, 2 days afterinstallation of a new meter.. C...15.02 r1 D..05/02/08 E.. £19.00 accepted F..£1.17 ch/wk G.. 103.56 kwh H..000.87 r1 I..16.36 r1 J..00015 r2 K.. 5.14 r/kwh per hr R..£005 R..£3.69 credit... and the following reading was taken on 13/02/2008... C...15.20 r1 D..13/02/08 r1 E..£00055 accepted F..£000.93 ch/wk G.. 00421.33 kwh H...00349 kwh r1 I...012.35p per kwh r1 J..00071 kwh r2 K..004.63p kwh r2 R.. £005 R..003.37E DEBT The above 2 readings were taken after 10 days and clearly shows the vast amount that has been credited in 10 days, despite being told that as from February 2008, I had qualified for the "Essentials Tariff"... after comparing all the readings above, and my annual statements, with my daughters annual statements I found that although both properties r 3 bedroomed and Gas central heating, my daughter having 3 children with tv and videos in every room, tumble drier, washer / electric cooker, 24/7 lights, and there just being myself and my husband at home I was actually crediting nearly twice as much as can be seen. Taking the annual figures of consumption and cost upon my daughters annual statement, here are the differences I noticed..... Daughters actual usage based on Actual readings from.... Oct 2011 - Oct 2012, On the " Eon Energy plan pre-payment Electricity was.... 4,788 kwh/untis used at a Cost of £578.22 Standing Charge.. v £ 96.31 Vat @ 5% £ 33.68 Total usage including Vat at a cost of £708.21 current prices r 25.89p a day standing charge 11.67p per unit/kwh inclusive of vat based upon the information here if my daughter was to apply the information for 4 years @ £708.21 per year cost would be £..,2,832.84 with usage approximately 19,152 kwh Mine however although supposed to be on BG cheapest Tariff Essentials from Feb 03/02/20 08 up to n including 01/02/2013, the majority of this time qualified for the Essentials tariff, but the cost using the above dates were £5,372 and a usage of approximately 45086.70 kwh .... surely I have been charged way over the top by not being on the Single Rate Tariff, and can claim any rebate due plus stat interest, @ 8% , I honestly think that my meter was faulty consumption wise as can be seen by the difference in usage. BG have been looking into this but have not contacted me as yet it was stated that BG calculation dept would calculate, what my usage was and the actual cost, but do not think I have been overcharged, can anyone help me on this matter before I contact them myself. Much Appreciated in advance junkimuki If there is Anyone out there that can actually work to the figures above, in relation to single rate and 2 tier night rate,

Also quite strange is that Mr Najib Nathoo ...... has at some time either been .A Director .. or.. Company Secretary of the following..... Bishops Investigations & Security Services Limited .................. Dissolved.. Delivery and Collection Services Ltd ................ Dissolved.. Edward James international (portfolio management) Limited ... Dissolved.. 1st Credit (management) limted .................. Dissolved.. 1st Credit (consulting) Limited ................. Dissolved... N.H.Global Investments Limited .................. Dissolved.. NLN ASSOCIATES LTD ................ Dissolved... Potcakes Limited ............... Dissolved... Edward James international (holdings) Limited ................ Dissolved... Edward James International Limited ................ Dissolved...... 1st Credit (Holdings) Limited ACTIVE.. 1st Credit (Finance) Limited ACTIVE.. 1st Credit Limited ACTIVE.. Consolidated Insurance Group Limited ACTIVE.. Financial Insurance Company Limited ACTIVE.. GE Keynes Holdings Limited ACTIVE.. or for further information on Mr NAJIB NATHOO, now either Director or secretary of DCA's ... Robinson way ... or go here to view some strange reading for the amount of Directors/ Secretaries interlinked with an assorted array of companies that are or have been interelated in some way or another....... including... dissolved companies.............. http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/908921323

hi everyone, Can someone please tell me what the NIC requirements and the tax years to be used to claim Incap benefit, I would be most greatful for the information thanx in advance

still on pursuit having had a disappointing result regarding the outcome from VOSA themselves, as to the punishment given to the garage, after having definately found that the van WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED A PROPER MOT ,, therefore having broken its contract, fraudulently issued an invalid MOT to the dangerous vehicle, and NOT requested to correct the faults or remedy the faults, Which I questioned the VOSA engineers as TO WHY REPORT THE INCIDENTS TO THEM WHEN NOTHING IS REQUESTED OF THEM TO RECTIFY the situation, why bother with VOSA at all, and after disclosing all the info to the police re the Fraudulent activities at the garage by validating MOT docs when the vehicles are known to be failures and even dangerous, but was told there was nothing that could be done to the garage or the fraudulent seller of the vehicle who happens to be a friend of the MOT Tester @ the garage who happened to have been a Director of the Garage previously, but the police did say that although VOSA stated that the vehicle would still be seen to having a valid MOT as from the date stated upon the "BENT MOT" for the ANPR cameras, to knowingly drive it now upon the public highway if caught would I myself would be prosecuted for knowingly driving a MOT failure on the road, "Where has JUSTICE gone "

I have now got an annullment form from the court and propose to complete the form to the best of my ability, and state the reasons most impiortant to the annullment and take the documented proof by way of the original documents in my possession to Court first thing Tuesday morning, and see if someone can advise me further from there, and also to send copies of all the relevant paperwork from both companies to the Insolvency Practitioners, who im my opinion should have checked these inconsisitencies out before going ahead, but the initial blame in my opinion lies first and foremost with the O.R. who was told that the debt( had always been disputed from the onset, and despite requesting documentation of proof of the alleged debt had never received any documentation from them and had never received any prior documentation as to any of the court hearings that had taken place w/o any valid agreements) should have been investigated by the O.R. himself before sending the case to the Insolvency Practitioners.

I contacted Companies House about the companies involved, and it was explained that as each company have their own unique registered company no: then they are classed as 2 separate companies, but even if they were both as one, how can one of them make you bankrupt and the other attend 3 different court hearings without any knowledge to oneself, and without any agreement provided at the courts and now the same company are still requesting the outstanding balance 8 months + after bankruptcy by the other company ????? , and even after contacting the solicitor involved and the companies re:: CCA to which the former company have stated THEY DO NOT HOLD ANY AGREEMENTS re the debt, and back in 2011 replied by way of a letter stating they were going to contact the O/L for the agreements and would send these as soon as they were received, but as yet 8+ months later nothing at all has been received from them, in connection with the valid documentation as to the alleged debt. And the company who proceeded to make him bankrupt would have not produced any agreement to the alleged debt, and who at the request to supply documents under the CCA act s78 79, have never produced any documentation when requested as their response was requesting a handwritten signed letter form my OH giving permission to discuss his alleged debt with myself ,........