Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

lombard loan from 2002 still being chased in 2013


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3884 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

In 2002 I took out a loan with Lombard direct. This was over a period of 5 years and included PPI, which I am now trying to claim back as mis-sold. However I defaulted on repayments when I lost my job and eventually this was passed to a collection agency. I have been paying Intrum Justitia every month for several years and in February this year I had a letter offering a settlement figure, which was far too high and I couldn't afford it. I then decided to ask for a copy of my credit agreement and sent the letter as advised on this forum. this was on 1st March. They replied on 11th March to the effet that they would contact their clients and hold the matter in abeyance until they had further instructions.

 

On 17th March Lombard sent a letter to me asking me to confirm my address and signature as I hadn't signed the request for a copy of my credit agreement. I did not reply.

 

On 23rd March I had a letter from Arden Credit Management referring to a letter I had supposedly had from Lombard dated 8th March. (I never received this letter). the letter from Arden advised me that they were now taking over the account and asking me to fill in a form with personal and financial details. I did not fill in the form but sent a letter advising them that the account was currently in dispute with Intrum Justicia.

 

On 1st april I received a letter from Lombard was was basically a Notice of Sums in Arrears provided in compliance with the Consumer Credit Act. they provided a telephone number for me to call. I haven't called and don't intend to.

 

So now I'm not sure what to do next. Do I just ignore this latest statement from Lombard. I still feel that the request for a copy of my credit agreement has not been fulfilled.

 

Any help or guidance would be most appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If they have failed to produce a copy of your agreement send this to Intrum Justica; http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/571-failiure-to-provide-a-copy-of-the-agreement-within-the-prescribed-timescale

 

Send this one to Arden; http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/574-letter-when-account-has-been-passed-on-whilst-agreement-request-is-in-dispute

 

The Notice of Arrears is nothing to worry about, it is a recent legal requirement that creditors inform you of arrears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the letter received from Lombard on 17th March I was asked to confirm my address and sign the letter so that Lombard could process my request for a copy of the credit agreement. They apparently could not do this because the address on their file was different, which is would have been since I have recently moved. However, their letter dated 1st April is a statement of my account, listing all financial details and payments I have made over the last two years. So they can send me all this personal information without being sure that the address is correct or that I am the rightful debtor!

 

Do you think I should point this out to them since I did not respond to their letter asking for confirmation of address.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't have to confirm anything and neither should you provide a signature, it is unnecessary and not a legal requirement. If they have previously been in communication with you according to the ico that is adequate, besides they would be in breach of ico guidelines if they had contacted you whilst unsure that you were the person in question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yesterday 20th April I received a letter from Arden which was identical to the one received on 23rd March. They obviously have taken no notice of my letter to them saying that the account is in dispute and that I had not had a letter from Lombard dated 8th March. Should I just ignore this?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I have an outstanding debt with Lombard Direct and have been in communication with various DCA since 2008. This debt has been passed around and is now with Arden, although I have never been informed that the debt has been assigned to any of the DCAs who have written to me. I have been taking advice from this forum and have sent off the relevant letters, firstly asking for a copy of my CCA from Intrum Justicia who were the first to make contact.

 

I have never had a copy of the CCA so my understanding is that the debt is in dispute until I receive it.

 

I now have Arden on my back and during the last 2 weeks I have had 4 letters from them. The first was jsut a form for income and expenditure for me to complete and return, no letter with this. The second letter was another form but attached to a letter stating that Intrum Justicia had confirmed that I had asked for a Subject Access Request which was forwarded to Lombard. I did not ask for this not did I send them £10, I asked for CCA and sent £1. Arden say that if I still need this information (SAR) then I must send another request and £10. The 3rd letter states that they have not received the financial questionnaire, this is tru I didn't send it. They also say they will be charging a fee if they have to write to me again.

 

The 4th letter is asking for payment in full or my proposals to pay. So they seem to ignore my correspondence to them which informed them that the account was in dispute with Intrum Justicia, or perhaps they just don't understand!

 

Can anyone advise my next step please.

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly they have no right to be requesting personal financial details from you.

 

Complain to Trading Standards about this latest company, your CCA request is still outstanding and they will continue to ignore you until you act in some way

 

Write to them (The debt collection Agency) and request a copy of their complaints procedure, make sure you head the letter OFFICIAL COMPLAINT, do not sign the letter.

 

You have nothing else to say until they prove their status, ie that they have a right to contact you, that they have a right to enforce the debt and that they can prove your liability for this debt

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, letter going off today as follows - I have taken the info from this forum, hope I'm not sending them incorrect facts.

 

OFFICIAL COMPLAINT

I acknowledge receipt of your recent letters dated 3rd and 4th November.

As far as I am concerned this account is still in dispute with Intrum Justicia and has been since 1st March 2010. As Intrum Justicia are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act Agreement request I consider this account to be in serious dispute, and as you are aware, whilst this request remains in default enforcement action is not permitted. This constitutes a complete defence at law.

As holders of a Consumer Credit Licence you are obliged to comply with the Office of Fair Trading Guidelines on debt collection. I would therefore be obliged if you would provide me with an explanation as to why you are attempting to collect on an alleged debt which was disputed with Intrum Justicia prior to your first contact with me, and has yet to be resolved. As per OFT guidelines Section 2.8k "not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt."

 

Since this is considered an Unfair practice and contrary to the OFT guidelines, you should consider this letter as a formal complaint, and provide me with a copy of your complaint resolution procedure. I also require you to confirm that you will now comply with the OFT guidelines, and will not attempt any further collection activity whilst the dispute is unresolved.

 

Should you fail to provide me with the required undertaking within 7 days, I shall report your breach of the OFT guidelines to Trading Standards and the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you would prefer to do this than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That might work, but you'll have to wait and see. If it's in serious dispute, then fingers crossed!

 

If that doesn't work, however, I'd send a CCA Request to Arden by recorded delivery, don't sign and enclose a £1 Postal Order, marked on the back with "To be used in regards to CCA Request ONLY" or something similar. It's then up to them to chase Intrum Justicia et al. for the relevant documents and to prove that they are legally allowed to collect the alleged debt.

 

As for contact - if you wish, you can send them the no doorstep visits/no telephone calls letters - in my experience with Arden, they do comply with these.

 

You are not obliged to send them an income/expenditure sheet. You could inform them of this, using a letter that I put together, with the help of a draft by Harassed Senior and amend it to suit:

 

Arden Credit Management

PO Box 15276

Solihull

B91 9PN

Date

By Royal Mail Recorded Delivery

Dear Sir/Madam,

Account Ref: xxxxxxxxxx

 

With regards to the above account, your staff have asserted in writing that I am obliged to provide you with a personal statement of income/expenditure in order to put a repayment planlink3.gif into place. This is, of course, incorrect.

 

I have been advised that this 'personal' information is just that - personal.

However, following the insistence of your staff and their claims that an income/expenditure statement is a requirement regarding this matter, I have obtained a Court orientated Income and Expenditure Form, to which, I understand, only a Court and/or Judge can legally have access, and filled in the details required therein.

 

Following the revelations about my financial status that completing this form brought to light, I would like to thank you and your staff for pointing me in the right direction regarding my legal rights.

Please note that I have no intention of avoiding any legally claimed repayments on the above account.

 

I hope that once I have received your full and accurate response to my CCA Request, sent on xx/xx/xx I will be in a better position to further discuss this matter with you and come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement.

 

Until such a time as you are able to furnish me with the correct documents pertaining to my CCA request, I expect no further correspondence from you.

 

Yours Faithfully,

Edited by Halibutt

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you sent a previous CCA request and have proof of this, then there is zero need to send another, the first fools who failed miserably to provide the agreement, have made your life a lot easier, all you need do is send any and all future DCA's the serious dispute letter.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Yet another letter from Arden - after them requesting my signature before they could send a copy of my CCA, I informed them that this was unnecessary and there were other ways to prove my identity. the letter from them states that this is in fact correct and there is no legal obligation on my part to provide a signature but they insist that they must now talk to me in order to carry out security checks.

 

they go on to say that Lambard have told them that they have called my mobile and been unable to speak to me, (I have changed my mobile), so that may be correct, but they insist that I call Lombard and have given me a number. Once I have called this number they will then send me a copy of my CCA.

 

So what do I do now, I really don't want to get into a conversation with either Lomabrd or Arden, and in fact I thought Lombard had gone under. surely the fact that we are in correspondence proves that I am me, otherwise I wouldn't be answering their letters at all.

 

Any advice would be much appreciated as usual.

 

Many thanks to all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not obliged to speak to them on the phone.

 

Valid reasons for this would be that you want a full written record kept of any/all dialogue. Anything that they say on the phone should be able to be put in writing.

If they wish to confirm your identity, then you could point out that if your identity is in question, then they have contravened the DPA by putting personal details in writing to an "unproven/unverified home address.

 

I'd re-iterate "In writing only" and stick to your guns. They cannot insist on telephone contact. What if you don't have a phone? What if you were deaf, had a speech impediment, were of a particularly nervous disposition?

 

Good luck!

 

H. x

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another letter from Arden - after them requesting my signature before they could send a copy of my CCA, I informed them that this was unnecessary and there were other ways to prove my identity. the letter from them states that this is in fact correct and there is no legal obligation on my part to provide a signature but they insist that they must now talk to me in order to carry out security checks. Rubbish, why would you have a need to provide information to a company you have never heard of nor ever done business with? it is for them to prove who they are, not you, if they are unsure that you are the correct person, then they should not be contacting you at all :o)

 

they go on to say that Lambard have told them that they have called my mobile and been unable to speak to me, (I have changed my mobile), so that may be correct, but they insist that I call Lombard and have given me a number. Once I have called this number they will then send me a copy of my CCA. again, complete twaddle, you do not have to speak to them and they should be able to verify their status without any problems

So what do I do now, I really don't want to get into a conversation with either Lomabrd or Arden, and in fact I thought Lombard had gone under. surely the fact that we are in correspondence proves that I am me, otherwise I wouldn't be answering their letters at all. Absolutely correct

Any advice would be much appreciated as usual.

 

Many thanks to all.

 

Like all other Debt Collectors, it would seem that this lot are relying on your ignorance and hoping you will believe their rubbish.

 

I would consider writing them a further letter and include (in your own words) the following:

 

reiterate your refusal to enter into any other form of communication other than in writing

clarify to them that you have no desire and are under no compulsion to provide them with any information at all, it is clear that it is for them to prove their position as owner of the account prior to even establishing contact with you, if they do not understand this, perhaps recommend that they seek legal advice

 

If they are uncertain of your identity in any way, then according to the OFT Guidelines and CPUTR, they should not be contacting you at all.

 

The CCA request you have sent is a lawful and valid request , there does not exist any requirement in the Consumer Credit Act which allows for a party to demand a signature, nor information of any kind, therefore until they fulfill your request you will enter into no further communications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Today I have received a letter from Lombard - after following advice from here I wrote to Arden as advised by Spamheed. They did reply to the effect that they were passing this back to Lombard who now have written to say that they couldn't respond to my request as my signature did not match the one they had of mine. They go on to say that "the Information Commissioner's guidance on access requests states that when a request is made by an individual for account information it should not be assumed that, on every occasion, the person making the request is who they say they are. In some cases it is reasonable, to ask the person making the request to verify their identify before sending them information." The letter then states that they have attempted to investigate the discrepancies with my information to enable them to fully comply with my request, however as I have advised them that I will not provide a specimen signature and am not happy to telephone them they are unable to provide the requested information. They then ask for some other form of identification, ie., a copy of my driving licence and if I am dissatisfied with this response I can refer it to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

So after all that, sorry its abit lengthy, can someone please advise me of what to do next. Do I really have to provide some form of identification. I have had so many letters relating to this debt from so many DCA's and replied to them, so isn't that sufficient?

 

Your help would be much appreciated as always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they have anywhere where you can collect the info in person?

 

What they have stated is word for word from the ICO's own guidance for signature requests, however, straight back at them I say!

 

2 Do you have enough information to be sure of the requester’s

identity?

YES?

Often you will have no reason to doubt a person’s identity. For example, if a

person with whom you have regular contact sends a letter from their known

address it may be safe to assume that they are who they say they are.

 

NO?

If you have good cause to doubt the requester’s identity you can ask

them to provide any evidence you reasonably need to confirm it. For

example, you may ask for a piece of information held in your records

that the person would be expected to know, such as membership

details, or a witnessed copy of their signature.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/checklist_for_handling_requests_for_personal_information.pdf

 

You could send them a letter outlining the above paragraph from the ICO's website.

And include in it that, "The time in which to confirm my identity was before you sent me your first threat letter, your letter dated dd/mm/yyyy in which you are only now demanding further information to identify myself is evidence that you have previously sent correspondence to me, and been in breach of the DPA in doing so.

 

You have had no problems in divulging sensitive and personal information to me without carrying out the necessary checks that I am the correct subject in question, therefore, you will either admit that you do in fact have no question as to my identity and will send the requested documents forthwith.

OR, you will admit that you have breached the DPA, and that you have no knowledge as to my Identity and have been sending personal private and sensitive data to a person unknown.

 

I look forward to your response, if it is to be the latter then I will deem this matter closed and report you to the ICO for investigation for breaching the DPA., if, as I suspect, this is your attempt at frustrating the legal process, then I will remind you of the time limit in which you have to respond with the documents requested and that the clock is still ticking.

 

Regards.

 

(PRINT YOUR NAME)

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

This debt has been through a few DCAs and is now with Westcot. From their first demand I advised them that the debt was in dispute as I had requested a copy of my CCA from Moorcroft way back in June 2010. I have received two letters in the past week, one informing me that if I require documentation then I must contact RBS and send £1. I have already paid £1 top Moorcroft and they have cashed the cheque. The other letter was a doorstep Collection Notice.What is my best way forward now - do I request a CCA from RBS or is the original request still valid. Many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...