Well.. they admit liability. No mention of the Ombudsman on this thread. I called a very helpful lady of the Ombudsman service, and after a brief explanation, she agreed it could be looked into. The problem was, which Ombudsman to complain to... there are so many lol. Anyway, she called me back to tell me that it should be Lord M's lot. Give them a call... they were extremely helpful to me. I had a quick read of this thread and it mentions a meeting with your MP? See how much further you can go with him and ask for advice about ethe Ombudsman. As I said in a previous thread, there is no guarantee of any kind of payment being ordered by him/her, but as there is admission, I would have thought that he/she would, at a minimum, expect that to be paid. It's just that he/she can order more to be paid, so it's worth a thought. I gather that your main concern is getting this overpayment written off. The way I see it, is that if enough people would complain, then this whole LEA/SLC shambles would finally be addressed. The biggest problem is that the systems they use are years old (LEA ones at least), and if any changes need to be done, rather than change the existing one, they create another one, so who knows how many different databases with duplicated and incorrect data are in existence? This is partly explained by the fact that these are "live" systems, and they probably don't or won't have another system running parallel for testing changes... cheaper to pay consultants to create yet another one. It just means there are even more points-of-failure though... as we are discovering.

Well... you have to go through the official complaints procedure, and get a final correspondence from them. Then, if you are still not satisfied, you have to get all your complaints together in a letter and ask your local MP to refer it to the relevant Ombudsman, who then goes through all the facts of the case, and can compensate you for various things... such as expense in trying to sort out the problem, and/or compensation for the hassle. It's by no means guaranteed anybody will get it, but basically, it's a kick up the bum to the people who got it wrong in the first place, and a reminder that it could cost them if they don't follow their owns procedures. Anybody who has had to have dealings with SLC know how bad they've been at doing the job... it's not just you and the other one you found, but the more people that hit them with claims for maladministration, then the more serious somebody might decide to take it! (Two directors I think it is have resigned over the fiasco already... probably more heads will roll too, but don't let that put you off complaining/claiming).

The OP could investigate to see whether this is a case of "maladministration", as it would be classed as "official error". This would only help on the compensatory side though (still, it's worth up to £5000 if my memory serves me correctly). On the upside for everybody though, if it went to an Ombudsman, then procedures would/should be changed as a result. Other than that, I think the OP would have to fight their case in court (as per loss of career etc). I am in a funding-issue situation also, which means I may have to drop out (broken assurances etc, incorrect figures, downright lies etc). Where is the accountability with these people?? Whether it's the Student Loans Company or the local LEA's, these people are paid to do a job, and do it correctly. There are too many mistakes made that nobody has any will to follow up on and correct and learn from. They are essentially a law unto themselves, backed up with the letter of the law. If a private company did this, they would have been wound up pronto!.

Just a quick thought about the "stalemate" with the payment. Can you get a recognised 3rd party such as the CAB or similar to call on your behalf. There would be a witness then if they say they will stop any eviction... and also if they refuse your payment. Either way, you are covered, as long as its an official 3rd party being witness to your offer to them. It would need to get done quickly though. considering its happening on Tuesday. Failing that, you can always take £7200 or whatever it is you can offer, and offer it to them right under the judges nose AND tell the judge at the same time, that you made this offer but quite reasonably requested anything from them in writing (ie. stopping the eviction proceedings), which was refused. You're only covering your own backside after all. Good luck.

Just a quick thought about the "stalemate" with the payment. Can you get a recognised 3rd party such as the CAB or similar to call on your behalf. There would be a witness then if they say they will stop any eviction... and also if they refuse your payment. Either way, you are covered, as long as its an official 3rd party being witness to your offer to them. It would need to get done quickly though. considering its happening on Tuesday. Failing that, you can always take £7200 or whatever it is you can offer, and offer it to them right under the judges nose AND tell the judge at the same time, that you made this offer but quite reasonably requested anything from them in writing (ie. stopping the eviction proceedings), which was refused. You're only covering your own backside after all. Good luck.

Yes... I'm aware of that. I was just pleasantly surprised at the deal they came up with at the first renewal, and as I said, they offered me that deal, as long as I kept the same phone (which was fine with me anyway). By not supplying a phone, that would have been how they managed to offer the deal anyway... I think lol.

Its quite amazing what they can come up with if you threaten to leave. I did it with my last contract, and suddenly I was paying half the cost for the next 12 month contract. The only downside, if you can call it that, is that I kept the same phone, but that was fine with me (I like the K800i, and yes, it's ancient now in comparison to what is available, but.. oh well). My original contract isn't available now to new customers, but I can keep it for as long as the demand is there to have it, and can keep renewing every 12 months. I prefer a 12 month contract each time, and as I'm an existing customer (2nd renewal due soon), I don't lose out if I don't take an 18 month contract. Just seems to be the way they work (customer retention). I'm due for renewal again soon, and I wonder what I'll get offered if I decide to leave again.. lol. In principle, the sticky is a good idea, but as the offers don't last forever, it would be an admin headache to keep up to date with whats available, and what has been stopped, IMO. Anyway...

They may have shot themselves in the foot by calling it a goodwill payment. The law is quite clear about charging for goods or services (ie. supply them, or else don't charge.. simple really). You would have to convince the judge that you haven't been reimbursed for their illegal charges (if they want to insist it is a goodwill payment), so if you can get a good case for that, the rest "should" follow, although you shouldn't go overboard with too high an amount. £200 isn't so much though really IMO.

Makes me wonder why they have to have a dedicated team to resolving this in the first place!!! At least they realise it's a problem though, but it should never get to the point of trying to charge customers for other peoples debts!! On the one hand, they go to the expense of setting up and running this dedicated team, and yet, on the other hand, they can't seem to afford to get a real person to read a meter!!

If you write to any DCA, dont sign your name... just print it, and send it recorded delivery, keeping the receipt. Basically, keep a diary of all events (dates of letters received etc, and phone calls whether answered or not if you have caller ID and choose not answer), as well as keeping everything the comes through the post. As for the fine, yes, sort that out first. A quick phone call or even visit to the court should sort that one out, and even if you do still owe, they would at least be slightly reasonable about it, unlike the DCA's!

Buzby summed it up. Basically, it is illegal to charge for something that is not provided (whether it's goods, or a service). They should have at least refunded you each month that you couldnt use their "service"... as a MINIMUM. Anything after that can be argued until the cows come home, such as the inconvenience, and the paying out for a working service etc.

Thanks BK.. I'm not too worried, but its just a pain sometimes if I try a few times and cant access the forums. No big deal, it usually comes back a short time later.

Even accesing CAG has been a bit of a problem these past few days, as well as the email notification (although I'm still receiving some of them). Anything else we should know?? (They didn't turn off the CAG hosting server too did they?!?! lol )

Your ex-accountant is claiming from the company, not you personally. He, of all people should know how it works!! If he wants to TRY to take you to court, thats up to him, but it would be a waste of time, not to mention some hassle to you for a while. Did the company just stop trading, and you wanted to close it down? Or, was the company dissolved through the Official Receiver? If it was the OR, then contact them and tell them somebody is hounding you for payment... they will soon put the claimant right! Hopefully, you won't hear any more after. Regardless of how it was dissolved though, this ex-accountant isn't going to get very far.

bump