I have noticed on the latest batch of begging letters from the Leeds Losers, that they state that "we have addressed your query" At first I thought nothing of this, however this old mobile debt becomes Statute Barred in the next Month or four and I wonder if this is some kind of p!$$ poor pre-emptive tactic to try to circumvent the whole SB argument, without the obvious pitfalls of the usual phantom payment scenario. ie. they have resolved a query on YOUR account therefore you must have acknowledged the account in some way. Obviously they would still be required to provide evidence of such a written query, but this would be much easier to fabricate (allegedly) than a historical payment

Unbelievable!!! After upgrading with T-mobile, I get a pretty new Galaxy S3 handset but I need a new mini sim, so I call T-mobile "no problem" I'm told, I'll have one sent out and it'll be with you in 1 to 3 days. sounds great right? a week later, I still have no new sim and my new phone is still in its box, so I call T-mobile again only to be told by the Philipino gentleman that the lady I spoke to last week hadn't processed my request for a sim, so it hadn't actually been sent out at all, the guy this morning sympathises and makes all the ahhh and ohhh noises but I'm still waiting unecessarilly!! Fuming doesn't come close and I won't be upgrading with T-Mobile again:mad2::mad2:

As you have sent them a "prove it" letter, you need do nothing else until they respond in letter formatr, a text means nothing until they can prove you owe something, then they get nothing.....not even another reply

Sorry but really can't read this, you need to break it down into paragraphs

If you had been taken before the court and had a fine imposed against you, then you would have to suck it up and smile, as RLP are not a court of law and neither do they hold any position within the judicial structure of this country they have the same rights as the local Ice Cream Man, so treat their "invoice" with an appropriate amount of respect. ie: none Pay them nothing, pay them nothing, pay them nothing do not reply to their letters, do not telephone them They hold no legal status which allows them to make such a claim. Pay them nothing, pay them nothing, pay them nothing

Had something similar happen with Scottish power when I bought my current property, they claimed to be responsible for the account as the previous tenant/owner had contracted with them. I requested a copy of a signed contract between me and them showing that I accepted them as my supplier before I would pay them anything. In the end they backed off and I paid my own supplier

Sounds so familiar, Npower sent me a bill for £1400 for only two months usage, it took me 2 years to get it sorted and get moved on, even had 7 bills produced in a ten day period ranging from them owing me £700 to me owing them £1400 - all within the same period. Once you have their final response and you have exhausted their complaints procedure, contact the energy ombudsman and file a complaint with them. It took this for them to finally sort out my problem. http://www.ombudsman-services.org/complain-now-energy.html

One thing that seems to have been overlooked is the nature of the offences, certain occupations carry with them certain automatic exclusions, any financial related offences would normally exclude one from a career in banking/finances, anything of a sexual nature would exclude one from working with children/elderly/disabled. My previous employer implemented CRB checks and the resulting activity was almost like a cull of our most experienced staff, most of the carers and youth workers we had were employed for the very reason that they had experience of young offenders instutes and the criminal justice system from a young persons perspective, and as such had records of their own, which made them more sensitive and empathetic towards the young people we were trying to help. Many of these Youth workers are still unemployed or have had to change careers since the introduction of CRB Without going into details Is it possible that it is the nature of the offences rather than their existence that is the issue?

Sorry, I didn't say earlier, My wifes employer is female, married with kids, which I would think would make her more sympathetic......obviously not!!

Let's hope so, cannot understand why people behave in such a foolish manner

Spoke to them this morning on my wifes behalf, apparently they're going to send her boss a letter with a penalty notice, my wife is going to go down with the kids and stand in the queue until her boss signs the form.

Yes she has, also phoned a few times, prior to today, the only time she has had a reply is when she has sent a text. It was only today when she realised her boss was being so obstructive. Have spoken to Jobcentre, HMRC and ACAS, all have said they've never come across something like this before and there is nothing they can do to compell her to give my wife the form. Given that this is a legal instrument and it is mandated that the employer should serve it on an employee who fits the specific criteria (ineligible for smp etc) I would assume that there would be some kind of enforcement mechanism, but apparently not!!

Just to provide some sort of background: My wife gave me a daughter in November of 2011 after a particularly difficult preganancy which resulted in many trips to the doctors and a week in the maternity unit mid way through her pregnancy, she was due to return to work on or about the end of July 2012. she works for a post office/coner shop type business. I am in full time employment and can to some extent "carry" the reduction in income for a short while. We found out she was pregnant again in April 2012 (I know, I know) and as with the first pregnancy, she had difficulties which resulted in her going on the sick straight from finishing her (first) maternity period. She has kept in touch with her employer at all times and produced sicknotes from day one, she submitted her MAT1B a couple of weeks ago and told her boss that she would begin her maternity on 22nd Oct 2012. We thoroughly expected that she wouldn't qualify for SMP and would have to apply for Maternity Allowance, her employer would need to return her MAT1B and supply her with an SMP1 form, from there she would need to apply to the Jobcentre for MA. She contacted her employer on Monday to ask when she would be receiving her SMP1 and her employer responded with "you'll get it when I have time to do it, and as I haven't done it yet, you'll have to wait" :-x this has gone on now three weeks with her boss refusing to supply the document and my wife unable to apply for MA because she MUST have the SMP1 signed by her employer - catch 22

. Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for clarifying your position on the matter of your doorstep collection. Please also note also the legal status of the ownership of large dogs who may have a propensity to bite unwelcome visitors. For the avoidance of any uncertainty, any employee of your company, or agent of any company you may represent, are forthwith classified as unwelcome visitors and will be introduced to my very enthusiastic Canine companions I trust this removes any ambiguity and wordplay and clarifies my position, ie. on this side of the gate with a "keen" alsation Yours XXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam You have stated your intention to perform a home visit at [insert address here], In order to ensure that you are dealt in a similar manner to any other unwanted visitor can you please answer the following questions. As part of your eviction from my property 1. Would you prefer to be savaged by a. Rottweiler, b. German Shepherd, c. Akita, d. Staffordshire Bull Terrier* (*please note due to the size difference with our Staffordshire Bull terriers and the other breeds held at the above property, more than one Staffordshire Bull Terrier will be set on you, this is also to ensure that you receive an equal service quantity-wise) 2. Would you like to order a video recording of your eviction (carries a standard fee of £50) 3. Would you like a medical Professional present for your eviction? (carries a standard fee of £500) Kind Regards XXXXXX

The document you have received is what passes these days for a notice of assignment, as an aside, the Deed of assignment can be requested and should be produced if this goes to court, but from my experience it will be redacted to the point of uselessness. when I got mine it was a blanket agreement with no information linking me to them, dates which conflicted with their POC, it proved quite useful

Was your business set up with the bank as a sole trader ie "your name t/a company name"? or in just the company name? or was it a ltd compay? were any of the transactions making up the overdraft balance processed after your business closed? have Natwest applied any charges or interest after you informed them of the business closure?

What does the POC actually say? what is the exact wording? have they or anyone else previously sent you anything by way of a copy of an agreement or an assignment of the debt?

But all of the othere reasons for misselling still apply, not applicable, self employed, could never have claimed etc and so forth

Please note that Cabot/Morgan's Deeds of Assignment (DOA) are normally so redacted as to be completely unreadable. However, they do and will produce them and attempt to have "a private word" with the judge to explain the commercially sensitive nature of the information held in the document to justify such redaction' You should object to any attempt to show the unredacted part of the purported assignment to the trial judge at the hearing. Any attempt to do so would raise a human rights issue concerning the keeping secret of relevant evidence from one party whilst sharing it with the trial judge behind the other party’s back. The redacted part of the purported assignment would not need to be shown to the Judge if it was not relevant to the issues between the parties. The Defence would need to be amended with wasted costs for the Defendant if any such application was to be made in this litigation or any attempt be made to rely on redacted content. On the basis of the un-redacted part of the purported assignment, certainly on the copy sent to me in my case, it was clear that the DOA covered multiple accounts ie a block of agreements sold to Cabot and at no time referred to my account in isolation, the date the DOA was signed was also materially different to the alleged date of assignment It may be too late in the day to deny the validity in law or evidence of the ‘representation’ of a notice of assignment. If it is a true copy it should be pleaded as such and the pleading verified by statement of truth. It is not pleaded as such and so it is not a true copy. Its inclusion in a pleading is an abuse of the process of the court, but it should be beared in mind that this document has no merit of its own and has not been pleaded as a true copy some good advice offered on this though

good luck

Be aware that Morgan WILL take this to court if they believe you to be "easy meat" or ignorant of the law. If you have it in writing from all parties that no-one at any time has been able to locate a properly executed CCA, then you need to make them aware of this and it's unenforceability the NOA is a forgery, they all are, the law does allow them to serve such a document on behalf of the previous owner, but it doesn't allow them to create a forgery. You need to see a clear paper trail covering the assignment of this debt, from the original Creditor right through to Cabot. You also will need to see a copy of the deed of assignment, as previously stated this will be heavilly redacted, but they do tend to rely on a blanket document which covers large amounts of debt that they buyu from whichever creditor and will not in itself link to your individual account. also was there any PPI or charges placed against the account? you need the supporting T&C for the PPI and clarification of the charges. If they are adding interest where in the agreement does it specifically allow for this - they will therefore need to produce an agreement showing such a clause do the figures match up? if not make them clarify how the figures are arrived at. Take a look here for my own experiences with Cabot: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?225933 I eventually used a firm of solicitors and Cabot backed off, this in the end cost about £1k

If you are 100% positive that no payments were made within the last 6 years then make them prove that such a payment was actually made and was made by either of you, the burden of proof is with them, not you "phantom payments" are not unheard of and have a habit of appearing just as the SB deadline is within sight. If the loan was taken out jointly then either or both of you are equally liable, ie they can go after either of you, but if it's SB then it's SB and they will have to prove that the payment was made by you either way

Also take a look at this, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?225933 I was pursued by Cabot/Morgan over an Egg Loan account, they eventually discontinued

Another "Documentary" which completely misses the point, Boast is a T*$$er who would brick himself if he had to face up to someone who could fight back, it is always easy to act hard in front of people who cower, less so when they have some fight in them. The whole program was designed solely for deniability, it was a one off, one rogue operator. the whole system is crooked from the lowlifes who kick in pensioners doors right up to the shareholding MP's - councils should be forced to deal with such matters in house and employ their own enforcement people, then they could not hide behind the whole "he doesn't work for us" argument