Regardless of where you purchased it, a £10 administration fee would apply, even

if bought from a ticket office.

The ticket office clerk (and my own experience) advised that he could and would have just done it had it been purchased through his office and that the fee would only come into play here for purchasing from a 'different location' (silly me for thinking a ticket machine installed at the station in question wouldn't be counted as part of the the same location for revenue collection purposes).

Why would you complain? It's your fault! You seem to make a habit of making this same mistake too, so this might at least make you think next time!

 

You agree to the £10 administration fee when you agree to the National

Rail Conditions of Carriage during the purchase process.

I purchase in the excess of 200 rail tickets per year, and have done for at least the last 10 years. Thats 2000 tickets, and this is the 3rd or 4th time in all of that time that I made a mistake. So 99.998% of the time I get it right. Hardly seems like a 'habit' to me. And the wording of NRCOC is that I *may* have to pay a *reasonable* administration fee not exceeding £10. Surely if that is taken as 'we will charge you £10' when I doubt very much that a £10 cost is involved then that is hardly implementing NRCOC in the spirit intended, whether it's legal or not.

My question was whether or not the £10 charge could constitute a breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - it certainly seems unfair to mandate an administrative fee which may be more than the cost of the original ticket and thus make refunds impossible below a certain amount. Indeed, I note with interest that the wording of NRCOC specifically states that 'where the administrative charge exceeds the refund you would have been entitled to, no refund will be payable'. I'm fairly sure that under that legislation it's illegal to explicitly state in a contract that a refund won't be paid.

But apart from the legal position, why should I complain and get a refund for my first ticket? Because it's a simple matter of customer service. Yes the mistake was mine and FGW supplied what I ordered, but in most customer service industries (which the railway apparently is) then it's simply matter of good will and customer loyalty to just let me make that mistake and change the ticket. As someone who has worked in customer-facing environments all of my working life, experience has taught me that you don't make customers pay for their mistakes where there is negligable cost to you just because the rulebook says you can. Have you ever returned something to a shop simply because you changed your mind? Are you aware that you have no legal right at all to do that and the shop would be acting completely by the book if they told you where to go? It is only the shop's good will that let you return it - and they do that to keep you happy so that you will be comfortable shopping there again. At the end of the day, without the customer there is no business and you don't have a job. You can never win by falling out with a customer, you can only lose a customer.

Customers are not an annoyance, they are the reason that *any* business exists. Start treating them like that and you will end up with no business.

Yesterday I bought a train ticket on the FGW website which I then collected from a FGW ticket machine at a FGW station.

It was an open ticket where I could return on a different day. As soon as I collected it I realised that I had bought the ticket the wrong way round - i.e from place B to place A rather than place A to place B. This means that as it stands I can travel out on the 'return' part as it's valid for one month but I can't get back on the 'out' part as it's tied to a specific day.

My mistake, but a genuine one. I've done this a few times before, and it's always been a simple matter to get this sorted - the clerk just sells me a new ticket, and then voids and refunds the original one. A few days later the money goes back on my card and all is well with the world.

But this was always at a ticket office. This time I've been informed that the ticket machine counts as a 'different location' (even though it's at the station I collected it from) and so they can't do that. In order to process a refund at a 'different location' I will be charged an administration fee of £10. Since the ticket only cost £7.55, this means that effectively I can't get it refunded as the admin charge is more than just buying a new ticket.

The clerk suggested that I should probably just board the train anyway and explain to the guard (and the people on the ticket gates who will need to let me through) what had happened. The problem with that is that this area is part of a penalty fares scheme and there are some extremely jobsworths guards about. Doing that could risk me being charged £20 for the journey.

As it stands I've had to buy a new ticket and am now stuck with another ticket I don't want and intend to make complaints to get it refunded.

As I bought it online I thought I'd be protected by the Distance Selling regulations but apparently these exclude contracts to provide transport. Could their policy be considered a breach of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation? It seems very wrong to provide a refund process which costs more to use than the cost of the purchase - essentially they are advertising a process which can't be used in my case.

It also seems wrong that if I go back to the original location (as in a ticket office) they would have refunded without an admin fee but in this case the £10 is for the service of being refunded from a 'different location' when they are providing no way of being refunded from the actual location (i.e. the ticket machine itself) which also seems wrong.

I'm particularly irked when I spend about £2000 / year on rail travel, almost all of which is on First Great Western, to then be treated like this!

Thanks tomtubby. I found her a bit strange tbh...I expected her to be impartial, not on my side but not on theirs either. But she clearly seemed to be on the side of the council. She started by delaying the hearing for 30 minutes in case the LA decided to turn up. Then presumed to take everything they said by letter as an unquestionable account of what happened but challenged everything I said to her. And despite making a point that the PCN itself was not under consideration in the hearing, she then started asking questions about the parking violation itself.

Even when delivering her judgement that I be given leave to file out of time i.e. I had won, the tone of voice which went with it was one you'd expect to be used to deliver a judgement that I'd lost. Then between delivering the judgement and me leaving the court room, she specifically mentioned THREE TIMES, that her judgement may not make any difference to the the eventual outcome and I could still ultimately lose (which I suspected and you confirmed is not the case).

Anyway, without a specific order for my fees to be refunded, how do I go about getting them back? I assume that that if I nicely ask TEC to refund them they will tell me where to go - Is there any formal procedure to go down or action I can take to get them back? I was reading up on county court cases last night and kept drawing the conclusion that without any order to the contrary, the losing party is automatically liable for the winning party's costs. I can't see any grounds for TEC not to refund the fees...or is it different because they are a 'court' and not an individual?

Well I've won...but it's far from the win I wanted.

I was well aware that the judge isn't going to consider the PCN itself, but I thought if accepting the reason for filing OOT they they would then go on to make a decision on the application which would lead to the warrant be revoked and the matter going back to NTO within the hearing?

This is not what happened. The judge's view was that the scope of the hearing was limited to deciding whether or not there was a valid reason for filing OOT. She agreed that I had a valid reason, but given her views on the scope of the case all she ordered was that I be given to leave to file out of time, which she then explained meant she was ordering TEC to accept the OOT filing, but it was still their decision as to whether or not to accept the application itself.

She refused to be drawn on the issue of the LA breaking CPR by getting the address changed, stating that it was not within the scope of her hearing to decide on the validity or not of the warrant, and that it was a matter for TEC to decide when considering the application.

On the issue of refunding my fees, she felt it was 'not proper' to order a refund when the matter of whether or not my application is valid has not yet been decided. If TEC find it is not and decline it anyway, then I had no business taking the matter to a hearing and so any fees incurred are my own fault!

In terms of what will happen now, I would have thought TEC will eventually accept the application on the basis that the form is filled out correctly, but without a judge ordering refund of the fees I don't know where I'll stand on getting them back.

Tomorrow I have my N244 hearing for this case (I pay two fees for two reviews of two PCNs but only get one hearing...go figure!). I have my arguments prepared, but having never gone down this route before is there any advice anyone can give regarding how to handle one of these hearings? Specifically, I'm a bit worried about protocol in court (how to address the judge etc) and don't want to slip up!

The plot thickens...although N244 has now been filed and I have the letter from TEC confirming it has been transferred locally for a hearing I have received 2 further letters from Equita. I will be ringing the council tomorrow to complain about the action of their bailiffs.

Interestingly, this time they've actually specified an amount...and Equita only want £95.44 per ticket! That wouldn't even be enough to cover the order for recovery, which should be over £100. And that's before the bailiff's fees are added. What are they up to?

Today I filed my N244's and am now £165 lighter once postage was included.

However, I've come home to another Equita letter. This time a 'warning notice' advising that their removal team was recently in the area, but were unable to meet with me and they will be back within 7 days. I am fully aware that this was another standard letter and a 'removal team' hasn't been anywhere near my house, but does anyone know the legal status with what the LA/Equita are doing in resuming enforcement action so quickly?

My understanding (although admittedly I don't know where I've got it from) is that when the OOT is refused and I have 14 days to file an N244, I am supposed to get those 14 days to do so without the LA being able to take any action during that time.

Yet this is not what is happening, today's letter and yesterday's letter are both dated 30 November, the same day the OOT's were refused. It would appear that straight away it went back to being an active case which they are pursuing without my getting any leave to consider my options. Surely this is wrong as I have felt pressured into quickly preparing an N244 under duress and getting it filed in order to get the action stopped again rather than being able to take my 14 days to consider my response and seek advice? I also think it's completely unjust that the bailiffs, who (in theory) are a 3rd party acting on behalf of the claimant, were aware of TEC's decision before me, the respondent who asked for the OOT, was!

I'm now turning towards my official complaints to TEC and the LA which it was suggested I make. Could the LA's decision to put Equita back on the case straight away be considered vexatious and worth including in the complaint? Also, whilst I'm completely up for complaining for the sake of righteousness, can I actually achieve anything by doing so being that I've had to file (and pay for) the N244 anyway?

PS. Is there a person/address to send official complaints to TEC and the LA (Plymouth City Council) to, or do I just send to the standard address and wait for it to filter through?

Thanks for your advice tomtubby.

Today I've come home to a further Equita letter, a removal notice for the 2nd PCN. This is dated 30th November, the same date the OOTs were rejected.

Could you give me any advice on what 'angle' to use on my N244? My arguments were going to be basically the same as that on the OOT, with the added ammunition on the original PCN that TEC's own records confirm the warrant was sent to my old address and amended later but the LA's response said it was sent to the new address.

Is it better to stick with this or move the main argument to be around the LA and TEC breaching CPR rules?

Also, do you think I have a strong enough case to go for the 'paper only' option, or is it better to pay for the hearing anyway?

1st PCN

NTO (re-issued) - 3rd May

Charge Certificate - 11th June

Order for Recovery - 17th July

2nd PCN

NTO - 21st June

Charge Certificate - 30th July

Order for Recovery - 4th September.

Some of these dates (particularly with the first PCN which had already been sent through the court once) are before I before I officially moved away but I had moved to my friends from early May, I did have a shared letterbox with another flat, I did tell them in May that I was moving out and they did have a habit of returning posting sent to previous occupants but none of my other post was missing, I do not believe this paperwork was ever sent.

The last date I had access to my old flat was on 20th July which in both cases was before the warrants were issued.

What do I do with the N244? If I can get these put back to PCN stage with a formal complaint I would obviously rather do that as it's free. But if I only have 14 days from the date of service (which is 30th November) then I guess I have to pursue it now? Or does making a formal complaint hold the 14 days to make an N244 claim?

A big concern I have is around Equita attempting enforcement action when I'm not there. My new flat is in a converted house where the downstairs neighbour has a habit of leaving the door unlocked. I am aware that entry into the communal area doesn't constitute entry into my home but the door to my own flat isn't very secure and I can easily see an enterprising bailiff 'pushing' it and claiming that it opened rather than he forced entry!

I got the keys to my new place on 6 July (but I'd moved 6 weeks or so before and was staying with friends whilst finding a new place). The lease on my old flat lasted till the 20th of July which was the last time I was there, so either 6th July or 20th July depending on how you look at it.

The car was disposed of on 10th July once I'd moved all my stuff

Just rang TEC, with the first PCN the warrant was issued to my previous address on 4th September and then re-issued to my new address on 26th November. This is the PCN where I have a copy of the LA's response. In this they also state the warrant was issued on 4th September and claim that Equita dispatched their first letter to my current address the same day which doesn't tie in at all with TEC stating it was issued to my previous address on that day.

With the 2nd PCN, TEC confirmed that 'the paperwork' was issued to my previous address and that a warrant was issued there on 12th October. They also claim it was re-issued to my new address on 2nd November and then 're-re-issued' to my current address again on 26th November. The council was made aware that I had moved in early September, and I do have a council tax arrangement sent to my new address from September to use as evidence that by October they were aware that I did not live at the address they had a warrant issued to.

I asked for a copy of the warrants and was told I could only get them from the LA or the bailiffs as TEC don't actually issue them, the LA do themselves. How can it be legal for an LA to print their own warrant and claim it's from TEC at Northampton County Court when it's not actually been there?

On the OOT for both I stated 'I did not have the opportunity to file in time as the order for recovery was sent to my previous address and I did not receive it' and the accompanying witness stated was made under 'I did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice / Notice to Owner'.

Today OOT's for both tickets have come back refused. One of them has the council's response letter attached.

In it they claim that Equita sent a standard notice to my current address about 2 months before I received the second chase letter. They also claim that all correspondence has been sent to my current address and claim that I must have received it as it's the same address on my OOT appeal. It's clearly a standard letter but they've totally ignored the fact that I put in the OOT that I had moved to this address which is why I didn't receive the earlier correspondence - my original address is not mentioned at any point.

Since filling it, I've also realised where Equita (are likely to have) got my details from - I still owe the LA outstanding council tax and gave them my new address shortly after I moved to set up an arrangement which I'm paying off. The date they claimed that Equita sent their initial letter was before the council were aware of where I have moved to, which ties in to why I didn't receive the earlier letter.

I am now thinking of N244, but of course at this point it costs me money, I'd appreciate a bit of advice!

• Can I put both tickets onto one N244 to be considered at one hearing and pay one fee since I have the same case for both of them, or do I need to do one N244 per ticket?
  
• Given that there are holes in the story and (presumably) the warrant will show a different address to that which the council have claimed they sent it to, is there any real advantage to paying the £80 for a hearing or would do I have a strong enough 'paper' argument to only pay the £45 review without hearing fee
  
• Being that I have 14 days to file N244, does this mean that action cannot restart until then?
  
• Does N244 temporarily halt action in the same way that an OOT does?
  
• I did create another thread on this last month, but with the first ticket (I still know nothing about the second one) I do not have any grounds to dispute the PCN itself, my dispute was always that I never received the PCN and thus never had the opportunity to pay the original discounted fee. Thus paying the £80 N244 fee + £35 PCN fee will come to £115, which is a very similar amount to paying the amount on the court registration. If I'm quick and contact the council before the account is passed back to Equita, can I simply pay the full amount on the warrant to the council and cut Equita off at source by satisfying the warrant and leaving them with nothing to pursue.
  

Well at the moment I'm hoping to get the OOT accepted and be able to pay one ticket at the original value and fight the other as I know nothing about it! I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from (sorry if my post wasn't clear). What I'd be trying to achieve is to create a 3rd option if an OOT is declined (hence the separate thread). Rather than going down the 'official' routes of either filing N244 or wait for the council to resume enforcement action (ie pay the bailiff + fees), the aim would be to create a third alternative.

My thinking is that there appears to be a 14 day window between the OOT being declined and enforcement action resuming to allow time to make an N244 application. The question is whether this window could be used instead to pay the warrant directly to the council and not apply for an N244. This would then roughly be the same as paying N244 fee + original ticket. This would also appear to prevent putting the bailiffs back on the case as the warrant would be satisfied so they'd have nothing to come at you with.

If this would work, it could be more expensive in some cases (eg if you are entitled to have your N244 fee waived, you have grounds to fight the original PCN or want to contest the bailiff fees) but in some cases this may be a better option (if it's an option at all).

This is in connection to a couple of PCNs which were passed to Equita and are currently awaiting a decision on an OOT application. The circumstances surrounding the PCNs are in my thread below.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?370272-Equita-Unknown-Parking-Ticket

The purpose of creating this separate thread is over a point which I think is more general, and if I'm right (I'm probably not as I can't believe I'm the first to think of this!) could potentially help other people.

Based on other threads and my own previous experience, I'm aware there's a high likelihood that the OOT won't be accepted, so I'm using this time to think of contingencies of where to go next if that happens.

If I'm unsuccesful, then the next step is N244. I will be liable for the full £80 fee for this and I am aware that it is highly unlikely that I will get this back. With one of the tickets in particular, I am prepared to admit full liability to the offence and am aware that I have no grounds for appeal. My defence has always been not that I shouldn't have got the ticket, but that I didn't receive one and so have never had the opportunity to pay at the discounted rate (see the other thread for details). So, with a succesful N244 + the original £35 ticket fee I am still going to have to resign myself that this ticket will cost me £115.

What got me thinking, is that £115 is awfully similar to the amount the council would have charged me if they were paid after the warrant of execution was granted but before the bailiffs got involved.

If I approached them to call off their bailiffs and let me pay them directly, they would claim that there is nothing to do once bailiffs are appointed and refer me back to them (the LA uses Capita as a backoffice and the bailiffs are Equita so the usual conflict of interest comes into play).

But at the moment, I've been advised in the other thread that all action should be stopped whilst a decision on the OOT is made. As I understand it, if the application is refused, I then have 14 days to make an N244 application, if I do that then action is again halted whilst a decision on that is made, and if I don't then the action continues and the bailiffs are re-instated.

But, doesn't this mean that there is a small window created here - a time when there is no pending decision on the warrant but also no enforcement action?

In that case, what is to stop me approaching the LA at that point offering full payment of the warrant (not something I feel just, but about the same as it will cost me to apply for N244 and pay the original fine anyway)? What grounds would they have to refuse it? And if they accepted it, the bailiffs couldn't be called back to execute the warrant as it's already been satisfied?

I realise they could attempt to pursue me for their costs already incurred, but without have a warrant to execute wouldn't this just reduce their authority to that of a conventional debt collector (i.e., none whatsoever), and they'd have to go for a CCJ against me to actually enforce their costs (which I see as being unlikely as their costs are never right?)

I'm sure I am seeing something which is too good to be true, as this would appear to be a way out (albeit not a free one) of bailiff action on any ticket which has gone to bailiffs but not had a witness statement filed?

I am very interested in the previous OTT which you say was submitted IN TIME. Would you mind providing some more detail on this

It was a couple of years ago, basically I submitted a stat dec and TEC sent it back to me saying they couldn't process it as it was submitted out of time. However, their own date stamp on the form showed that it was received the day before the deadline. I rang TEC to advise them of their mistake, they then calculated that the deadline should have been a few days before the date on the form, and so the form was wrong.

I tried arguing that any mistake on their part is not my problem, I had been given an official form giving a date to respond by and by their own acknowledgement I had responsed by that date.

They advised that OOT was still the only way to go as the stat dec had been refused for being out of time, regardless of why this had happened.

I was quite confident that the OOT would be accepted as it seemed a matter of common sense and I had supporting evidence. It was declined and I ended up paying them.

Back to these tickets, I have been reading up on OOT's. Despite every story being that they are always declined (and my own experience of it) I did find details of someone's freedom of information request into them and it would seem that about half of them do get accepted.

Any ideas on the likelihood of this one being succesful? Not notifying DVLA of a move seems to be an accepted reason for refusing them but in this case there was nothing to notify DVLA of.

Also, I have read several times that if you have moved and are traced to a new address, then this in itself should knock the tickets back to NTO stage. Is this actually a policy? If so does this not mean that there is no warrant and I shouldn't need to be doing any of this?

I've now come home to a letter (apparently sent on monday) with 'Removal Notice' on it, warning me that bailiffs will call with no further warning to impound my car (which no longer exists) if i don't pay immediately. Both of the tickets now have OOT's filed. From reading other threads action should be stopped until this is resolved?

Confirmed by TEC, an OOT is the only way to go about this. I tried one of these before on the grounds that I didn't file out of time because I had filed before the date on the form and TEC's own date stamp confirmed that. The explanation is that the form had the wrong date printed on it, the LA refused to allow the OOT, and the 'impartial hearing' at TEC upheld their decision.

Nevertheless, I've filed an OOT. Does this put any type of temporary hold on the warrant whilst it is being considered? If this is lost I guess I'm looking at N244 as the only way forward?

Today I've come home to another letter from Equita apparantly about another PCN. The letter is identical to the first. This PCN I have no record of at all, and as far as I'm aware I didn't do anything which would have attracted a PCN before leaving my old address. As with the first letter, my VRN is not listed.

My details were not updated with DVLA as there was nothing to update - my vehicle was scrapped as part of the moving process so was never registered at my new address as it was never at it, and at the time there was no action going on with any tickets at all so no reason to tell the council that I was moving.

Curiously, Equita have still take no further action on the original letter, even though I've now had it for almost 2 weeks.

Thanks Lamma, only just got home from work so didn't get to do anything today. Just to confirm that I say the right thing to the TEC (haven't found them very helpful on my dealings with them before), I am applying to get the warrant set aside and I can apply to do that directly without need to try a stat dec out of time (which I did try with a previous ticket but that went nowhere)?

You make this sound like a very routine and easy thing to do, hope it actually goes that well!

If I manage to get the warrant set aside, what happens next? Will the council restart the enforcement action again at my new address so I can finally pay the original ticket price, or does it just stay up in the air?

Something I didn't see before is that there *is* a PCN reference on the letter after all, it's written in a tiny font (about size 4 or 5) and buried in with the footer, no idea why they want it hidden!

I've gone back through my appeals, with this particular one the first I knew of the PCN was receiving the NTO. I appealed on the grounds that I never received the ticket so never had the opportunity to pay the discounted amount (this particular one I couldn't argue with). They refused the appeal (I did have 3 tickets withdrawn by this point so clearly not their favourite person). As I'd found the TPT a waste of time in the past, and I was quite willing to pay the discounted charge, I submitted a stat dec to the court on the grounds that I had never received the PCN and expected to receive one to pay.

The court action was cancelled, but the council never sent anything out about re-starting the process, and that happened well over 2 months before I moved out. So this one has already been through the court once and sent back!

The wording of the letter is:

Any further ideas on how to play this one? I'd quite happily pay the charge on the PCN, but that's all I'm willing to pay! Equita no doubt will want hundreds.

Back in July, I moved house (and to a different town and different local authority area at that). I had earlier this year had a large number of PCNs, most of which were succesfully fought and repealed with one outstanding which I paid. As far as I was aware all outstanding matters had been dealt with, and there certainly weren't any new PCNs in the last month or so before leaving, so if there were and the ticket was removed from my car I would have had time for the NTO to arrive before leaving.

Today, I've come home to a letter from Equita regarding an unpaid ticket which apparantly has been through the court and a warrant of execution granted. They do not include any PCN number, any reference number for the warrant of execution they apparantly have, the VRN of the car involved, nor are they demanding any specific amount of money, only that I contact them before 'further enforcement proceedings' are started. The usual bailiff threats of a visit from the door and removing goods are not made.

In the past I did have some PCNs which ended up with Equita, and this is not like any letter I've seen before, those all demanded a specific amount of money, were properly reference with the PCN and VRN and were much more specific about what would happen if I didn't pay.

Also, as I scrapped my car as part of the move I've never had it registered as my new address, nor have I registered on the electoral role so I'm uncertain how they've even found me - my only guess can be they've searched council tax registers for people with the same name (my surname is uncommon) and are fishing to see what response they get.

This is also the only letter I've had regarding this alleged ticket at all, so if they or the council knew where I was previously I would have expected correspondance before things got to this stage.

A few things I'm wondering

• Is this likely to be a fishing letter to see if I'll respond or would they actually take action against this address without response from me or something else to confirm that I am the person they are looking for - if they are fishing it's even possible that this has nothing to do with me - my name might be uncommon but there were 2 of us in the phone book at my old town!
  
• Can they proceed without some kind of verified proof of where I live?
  
• What would be the status of the warrant of execution that already exists? Would that be to levy distress at a specific address (i.e. my old one only) or would it cover anywhere where they know (or believe) me to be? Would 'further enforcement proceedings' mean that they need to go back to court before they can do anything else at a different address?
  
• Can I apply to have the court order for the warrant of execution set aside on the grounds that I didn't know I was being taken to court and have had no opportunity to defend myself?
  
• If I go down the route of making an out-of-time witness statement on the grounds that I didn't have the opportunity to fight the PCN, accept it and pay a lower fee, or file a witness statement in time is this likely to be succesful (I've never had success with an O-O-T yet, but I've never before had the argument that I didn't live at the address they sent the information to)?
  
• Can I find relevant information out without contacting Equita - it's not about avoiding a ticket, it's more that to them all I am is a name with a sum of money attached to it and their greater concern is getting me to pay it, not about whether or not I actually owe it or have grounds to fight it so I don't consider them an impartial body to get information from!
  
• How long would Equita wait before taking any further action, to give me an idea of how long I have to sort this out?
  

Any help would be greatfully appreciated!

Was this letter an actual demand for payment or was it a polite thing referring to 'Your Lowell Account' and asking you to contact them to discuss? If the latter it's just a phishing letter to see if you can still be contacted through an old address because they have no idea where you are.

Lowell often do this sort of thing with student debt where a parent's address was given at the time but they don't actually know where the debtor lives now. Unless there is something to tie you to your mum's address (electoral role registration etc) it's very likely that this will be the last you hear of it.

Thanks for all the replies, and sorry in advance for how long this post wil be.

I accept that I owe the OC the remaining 3 months on the agreement and I would gladly pay that to them with suitable instalments, but I find the idea of paying a DCA anything galling when they've bought the debt for peanuts.

One thing I do not want to do is enter into any repayment agreement with anyone until I've got the balance down to the correct level. I certainly want to see a statement of account to show where they've plucked these charges from and what happened to the 3 instalments I did pay. Now that they've supplied a credit agreement which appears to be compliant with the s.77/78 request can I still demand this from the DCA as part of the request (as part of the 'and related documentation' line) or would I now need to SAR the OC (trying to save myself the £10) to get this information?

One thing I am considering though, is that if McKenzie Hall don't budge and eventually issue court proceedings for the amount they are claiming, what are my chances of arguing the amount down in court?

As I see it, there are several shortcomings by LS which might make the agreement unenforceable anyway:

1. Checking through the emails, I don't have a SECCI. It is possible that one was put on screen for me to read during the application process, but you're supposed to be able to withdraw from the process to consider the SECCI before proceeding, you shouldn't be forced to agree to it on the spot. That said, I don't honestly remember one, just the instalments listed on screen and a link to some terms and conditions before clicking the 'I Accept' button. Without a SECCI, or where one was provided but which I couldn't take time to review, does this not mean that the loan agreement was not properly executed and so is unenforceable?
   
2. The lack of a certified digital signature. The PDF dadofholly attached says that they can get away with this on the CCA request, but in court would need to either provide a signed agreement or supply evidence that the agreement would have been signed. But the only agreement that has ever existed is the one with no verifiable signature, there is nothing else for them to produce.
   
3. Even if the agreement is taken as valid and signed, what the signature represents. When clicking the 'I Agree' button (which I guess is what will be claimed to be the evidence of signature) I was taking to a page specifically stating that I had been *provisionally* approved and then was emailed what was specifically stated as a 'provisional and unexecuted agreement'. I then got a phone call the next day to verify details, even at the end of the phone call I still had the loan 'provisionally approved pending further checks'. Then I got a text saying the loan was approved and had been transferred, and then got exactly the same loan agreement sent through again and claimed as being the executed agreement. So, I was not actually presented with a new agreement to sign when the loan was confirmed, they've just decided to take what I signed as a provisional agreement and use it as the executed one. Although a little bit different, is this not very similar to the old 'application form with terms and conditions on it being used as a credit agreement' situation which made a lot of credit cards unenforceable?
   

I actually wouldn't mind letting this go to court if there is a chance I could win on these grounds.

Does anyone know if it is common for DCAs to actually issue court proceedings for PDL debt (it might be over a few months, but LS is essentially a PDL type operation)? And if they do, are they 'real' proceedings (as in they will actually turn up and fight their case) or are they scare tactics where they will settle out of court for a nominal amount/withdraw as soon as I try to transfer the case to a local court/not turn up on the day?

I took out a 6 month loan agreement with Lending Stream last year.

3 months into the repayments, I lost my job and started missing the payments.

LS were unsympathetic and added the late payment fees and default interest on.

Shortly after the date the final payment was due, they then sent me a default notice.

The amount was exactly in line with the (probably unlawful) payments and charges schedule in the loan agreement, except for one minoo issue;

They were also claiming for the repayments that I had actually paid - the amount they wanted was as if I had never paid them anything!

My letters were ignored and after some email threats (never got anything in writing after the default notice or any phone calls) everything went quiet

the end of January I got a letter from McKenzie Hall, the amount claimed now includes additional charges which I can't reconcile to the loan agreement as well.

I thought a CCA request would quickly deal with them, but to my surprise they have actually replied with the credit agreement.

As it was done over the internet there obviously wasn't a physical signature,

but with digital signatures i've seen before there is usually a cryptogram on the agreement which can be used to prove that I did sign it.

This one doesn't - it's literally just my name and their name typed onto the agreement.

Checking back through my emails this is indeed exactly the same as the agreement I got from LS at the time of the loan

- except that LS themselves describe it as a 'provisional and un-executed agreement' with a promise that an executed one would follow.

They then sent exactly the same agreement through a day *after* the loan had been paid into my account.

At the moment, I've not acknowledged any debt with them.

Before I get into arguing about what I actually owe,

does anyone know if this response actually satisfies the CCA request?

As far as I can see, there is no way of proving that I actually signed it?

I had a parking ticket from Taunton Deane Council which I disputed with them and lost my dispute on. It eventually ended up with Northampton Court, and the last communication I had with them was for a feee of around £110. I didn't have the money at the time but it went quiet so I left it, expecting that I'd eventually get a letter from Bailifs adding another £15 to the charge but cruicially giving me another month to pay it - this has happened to me before when Plymouth City Council used Equita to collect and in fairness considering they were bailifs I found them quite reasonable people to deal with, agreeing a repayment plan over the phone with no extra fees for doing so.

Taunton Deane on the other hand have used CCS Enforcement Services. I heard nothing for about 2 months since the last letter from Northampton, until yesterday when I came home to a letter from CCS advising me that 'Mr Gaynor' has been trying to contact me. I've had no previous letters, and I live in a shared house where there is someone on the premises all day, and no one from CCS has ever been round. My car is also parked outside most of the day and so you'd expect a bailiff to tow it if he couldn't get hold of me at the door. The letter also didn't show an amount owed, unlike letters from Equita.

I rang the automated payment line (it was late at night) to find out the balance, and somehow they've come up with a figure of £289.84! I've looked at every scale of charges I can find for CCS/Rundles and I can't see anything which can possibly get the amount so high so quickly.

I rang back first thing this morning to discuss it with their call centre and was told that they could not discuss the account with me at all and I needed to ring the bailiff directly to discuss any queries with the account and was given his mobile number.

So I rang 'Mr Gaynor'. He advised me that he didn't have the details to hand and could only confirm the balance. I then asked if a repayment plan could be set up and he told me it could but that he would have to visit me in person for that, which would be a chargeable visit.

Wanting this ****** off my back I decided on this occasion to pay in full for now and argue later and so gave him my card details. I checked my bank a few minutes later and £290 is 'missing' from my account as a pending transaction but as yet I can't see what for.

I'm a little worried though that when I rang up again and tried the automated payment system to check the account was clear, 12 hours after making the payment, that the automated system still claims the full amount is owing, which is more than a little worrying.

Anyone have any experience of this outfit, and what they are likely to have done to blag this amount of money out of me? I'm also quite concerned that it doesn't seem to have registered as paid yet the money has gone from my account!

Thanks for the advice, now composing my letter. Just one thing I'm not sure of, does the CCA clock begin ticking from when you send the letter, or when they receive it, and do you start counting from that day, or the next?

So, if, say, a CCA request is send today (20th March) and is received on Monday (23rd March), would the CCA be in default on 2nd April, 3rd April, 5th April or 6th April?

The reason I ask is that depending on how the days are counted, they may have just been inside it at the date of their final demand letter.