Hi Has anyone had any success dealing with Scottish Power with any alternative remedy to the Energy Ombudsman, please? I'm helping out a seriously ill friend whose bills have got in a mess over a number of year he's been in and out of hospital with various internal organs packing up. I've been trying to disentangle his energy bills which is through Scottish Power which he had no choice about as it was mandatory as part of his rental. It's all very convoluted but comes down to them refusing repeatedly to amend the billing address to make sure he received bills, failing to provide any tariff information at all and simply applying whatever tariff at any one time was the most advantageous for them, and now it turns out that the meter readers he was letting into the property (which is a redeveloped mill with many apartments) weren't in fact reading the meters at all so the bills have been estimated. Not getting the bills means he's not been able to draw down any of the discounts he'd have been entitled to and he's now being billed for usage they can't prove he ever used. While this complaint has been ongoing, even though I'm Court-appointed as his representative they won't use my address or contact to resolve this, have ignored offers to pay, and have passed the account while in dispute and with the Ombudsman to debt collection agents who keep ringing him on a mobile number Scottish Power have told the Ombudsman they've never had when I personally have been fielding up to 10 calls a day from Scottish Power and its agents to that number. The Energy Ombudsman's view is that Scottish Power don't and still don't have to amend the address even though that would mean that him, as one of the parties to the contract, would actually receive bills for the service they're trying to charge for. They also say that Scottish Power can charge whatever they want without him agreeing or seeing tariffs when surely he is entitled to clear, accurate and timely bills. They say it doesn't matter that there's no proof of what energy he's used, he has to pay it anyway. I genuinely don't understand that at all, when any supply is between two parties and must be equitable. My view is that he should have to pay what he's used but not for what they can't prove was him and could've been earlier tenants, he shouldn't be charged high tariffs he never agreed to in the first place, he should be allowed the discounts they've deprived him of. With the harassment on top of this, and their steadfast refusal to try and get the matter sorted in a way that's equitable to both sides of the contract, my inclination is to take Scottish Power to Court to get it sorted. Has anyone tried this, or been able to get other mediation involved to get it sorted fairly? Any help much appreciated, ta, Claire

Hi I'm doing it as one claim because they've already admitted in writing that the PPI was mis-sold - that step has already been taken and they've admitted culpability. I need to include it in the discussions about the enforceability of the agreement as the mis-selling itself is a breach of contract and an unfair term with them exercising an unfair relationship; the PPI is listed as an obligatory component of the CCA on the CCA they claim is the executed one, and has been detailed on that CCA as part of the agreement rather than separate as a different category of credit for which the prescribed terms haven't been included, so the PPI itself is one of the things which are wrong with what they claim is the executed agreement which then have a cumulative effect. I'm happy with the content of my Particulars of Claim; I just needed to know what form would be correct, when Halifax County Court seemed to think it wasn't a matter for the court at all. Thanks for the help though. Cheers Claire

Eyup That's fantastic, cheers for the help. Thanks Claire

Hey Thanks for the advice: I already sent it to the AA and all they did was escalate the harassment and passed it to other debt collectors after the first lot passed it back to them on grounds that it was disputed. I've based the Particulars of Claim on the advice on the forum and have further investigated the details of all the legislation, precisely so I understand the details so I can argue my whole claim myself. Some of it is actually very simple precisely because they've admitted they mis-sold the Payment Protection Insurance. Having tried the Ombudsman first who said it has to go to a court of law, I have had very bad experiences with solicitors and am not in the position to throw any more money at the problem. I want to issue these forms and get it resolved one way or the other. All the advice is that it's the N1 form; if the court say it isn't, what form should I use? Cheers Claire

Hey Some guidance please. I'm at the stage of issuing claims against AA Visa/Loan - both of which have improperly executed agreements, and both of which included Payment Protection Insurance which AA have admitted was mis-sold but which monies they've held onto against the disputed account. Having got nowhere with the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman very specifically said that a court had to rule as to whether the agreements were enforceable/wholly irredeemable, I took quite a lot of time formulating the Particulars of Claim which can be summarised as: Court judgment that Credit Card Agreement is improperly executed and/or fraudulently misrepresented and thereby irredeemably unenforceable; repayment of Payment Protection Insurance monies the Defendant has admitted mis-sold and thereafter unlawfully withheld, thereby receiving unjust enrichment by duplicated benefit on the Defendant’s own mistake in law and/or fact; rescission and/or discharge of disputed account balance or in the alternative reduction of said balance as restitutionary damages for contractual breaches and contraventions, breaches and violations of law and governing principles; removal of default entries with Credit Reference Agencies in order to put Claimant in position would have been in before the mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance; restitution for escalating debt collection practices and breaches of Data Protection Act 1998. HOWEVER the Court keep sending the forms back with different things wrong with them. I have rung and tried to find out what the problem is and their main problem seems to now be that an N1 claim form is only for money claims and the rest of it should be taken out. Though it is all one claim and we are ultimately talking about money. They say the value of the claim should ONLY be the money I actually want back and interest thereon, not for example the account balance I'm disputing - while you can certainly argue that it's not money coming back, it's certainly a monetary value of monies written off and I think it has to be included in a monetary value ascribed to the claim. When I asked what form I should be completing, their answer is to get legal advice. Which I of course have had.Tis like a hamster ball. So, any ideas on what claim form I should be completing? It's all one matter with two sides in dispute upon which a court has to make a judgement in law, and I would guess that the value of the claim is mainly to do with the track it'll be heard on. At one point, she said courts only deal with money claims - huh?]Thanks for any advice. Cheers Claire

Hey Some guidance please. I'm at the stage of issuing claims against AA Visa/Loan - both of which have improperly executed agreements, and both of which included Payment Protection Insurance which AA have admitted was mis-sold but which monies they've held onto against the disputed account. Having got nowhere with the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman very specifically said that a court had to rule as to whether the agreements were enforceable/wholly irredeemable, I took quite a lot of time formulating the Particulars of Claim which can be summarised as: Court judgment that Credit Card Agreement is improperly executed and/or fraudulently misrepresented and thereby irredeemably unenforceable; repayment of Payment Protection Insurance monies the Defendant has admitted mis-sold and thereafter unlawfully withheld, thereby receiving unjust enrichment by duplicated benefit on the Defendant’s own mistake in law and/or fact; rescission and/or discharge of disputed account balance or in the alternative reduction of said balance as restitutionary damages for contractual breaches and contraventions, breaches and violations of law and governing principles; removal of default entries with Credit Reference Agencies in order to put Claimant in position would have been in before the mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance; restitution for escalating debt collection practices and breaches of Data Protection Act 1998. HOWEVER the Court keep sending the forms back with different things wrong with them. I have rung and tried to find out what the problem is and their main problem seems to now be that an N1 claim form is only for money claims and the rest of it should be taken out. Though it is all one claim and we are ultimately talking about money. They say the value of the claim should ONLY be the money I actually want back and interest thereon, not for example the account balance I'm disputing - while you can certainly argue that it's not money coming back, it's certainly a monetary value of monies written off and I think it has to be included in a monetary value ascribed to the claim. When I asked what form I should be completing, their answer is to get legal advice. Which I of course have had... ]Tis like a hamster ball. So, any ideas on what claim form I should be completing? It's all one matter with two sides in dispute upon which a court has to make a judgement in law, and I would guess that the value of the claim is mainly to do with the track it'll be heard on. At one point, she said courts only deal with money claims - huh? Thanks for any advice. Cheers Claire

Good luck. Have they provided anything to you at all? The one thing I found which would be useful, to me at least, was on the thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html#post1868913 It's about how to request the court for disclosure of documents under the requirement of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 says Quote: 7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement: (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. I was thinking I might have to play around with to do Particulars of Claim. Guess it would be a useful summary for what to say to the court? I'm like you, until they confirm to a court that what they've sent me (which is unenforceable) is the only agreement, then I'm worried they'll suddenly get their act together and produce one! Though I'm still unclear as to whether, if and when a court deems an agreement unenforceable, they're then required to remove all record of that agreement - with credit reference agencies, their own records, etc. ! The stuff I found on CAG about the date of agreements was that: Section 127(3) was repealed in the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which came into force in January 2007. Therefore, the enforceability of any agreement entered into after 2006 cannot be challenged by Section 127. This doesn't mean that such an agreement is necessarily enforceable but it does mean that its enforceability must be argued on its own merits. The enforceability of an agreement that is not properly executed, signed after 6 April 2007 and not having the debtor's signature and the prescribed terms in the same document may not be enforceable but it's enforceability has to be argued on a case-by-case basis (you cannot use section 127(3)). Don't know if that's of any use to you or not, but anyway, best of luck. Cheers Claire

Hi Thanks - that thread has been really useful. I used it to send a secondary request to both the lenders and then the debt collection agencies they sold the disputed accounts to, though any other agreement still hasn't been forthcoming from anyone. It's going to be pretty useful once it comes to court, but it doesn't really give me the info I need for Particulars of Claim sadly. Ta for the advice though, Cheers Claire

Eyup I would guess that they haven't got another agreement but am hoping a court case would force them to produce whatever they've got, just in case. I stopped paying in October after they'd been in default of the CCA request for three months, they then defaulted it, told them it was disputed but passed to the debt collection agency anyway, whereupon I used the CAG template in corresponding with the DCA saying there was no enforceable agreement and suggested they pass it back to MBNA. But haven't heard since. I don't particularly have any worries about them taking me to court, fairly sure of my ground in terms of it being wholly unenforceable, just wondered if anyone had a template for me to counterclaim when MBNA take me to court. Cheers Claire

Hey Sorry, don't have a scanner but I've checked it all out pretty thoroughly against the guidance and it's an application form, it doesn't have both signatures on (predates the repeal of the 1974 legislation) nor does it have all the prescribed terms, right to cancel, etc. They've been absolutely clear that this is the proper agreement, though in fact I have a different one with terms and conditions supplied at the time and that doesn't have any of those either! Ta Claire

Hey Yep, that's all in writing. I don't want to complain to the Ombudsman about them without being sure of my ground really, what other TStandards say/do differently, in case it's them that's right! Cheers though Claire

Hey Cheers, they are indeed a waste of space and time; won't be bothering with them for any of the others, that's for sure. Oh yeah yeah yeah, when you open that agreement and see it's unsigned/doesn't have prescribed terms in, you just wanna dance... Ta Claire

Hey The latest update is that, despite the account being disputed, MBNA has sold the disputed debt on, despite these being disputed and despite no enforceable CCA being provided. The Ombudsman has already said in the case of MBNA that a court must rule on enforceability. I used the CAG templates to send a letter to the debt collection agency and at the mo am still awaiting their response. So, the first thing is that I need to prepare my response for court as I think either MBNA/the debt collection agency will now go for a county court judgement against me. I want to counterclaim to get a ruling on the unenforceability of the agreement, so any particulars of claim for how to counterclaim for this would be really useful please. There's also missold PPI and charges on there so I would be wanting to also ask for these back. The second issue is that, as per the guidance, I reported MBNA to Trading Standards for unfair trading. WY Trading Standards have a different take on the whole unfair trading thing to what other CAGers seem to be getting from their local Trading Standards, and it'd be useful if people could post their responses from their Trading Standards which DO agree with the CAG templates. The gist of WY Trading Standards final response in refusing to take up unfair trading with MBNA is; - creditor not prevented from enforcing a debt for which they've not provided the original executed agreement even when the account is clearly in dispute, when MBNA have been told the debt is in dispute and should not according to the Banking Code and ICO be taking enforcement action on a disputed debt. - CCA 1974 repealed, so MBNA don't need to provide a properly executed agreement and don't need to have both signatures nor prescribed terms on a CCA for it to be regarded as properly executed - even though the agreement was before the repeal and so should have been properly executed with signatures and prescribed terms at the time. - say that I appear to be disputing the collection methods, not that I owe the money; when I'm disputing what's owed because the agreement is unenforceable. - don't seem to understand that what I'm complaining about is the fact that they're taking enforcement action on disputed accounts when the companies have subscribed to the Banking Code which means they've breached this Code which is contractual. - with regard to MBNA's unfair trading, there are no breaches of legislation (!!!) on which Trading Standards have any role. Any guidance? Seems ridiculous to me that other Trading Standards are wholly supportive when WY Trading Standards don't agree at all with CAG's position. Thanks and cheers, Claire Meebroke, can you please let me have the link to your thread with the Trading Standards stuff on it? Ta muchly. Thanks and cheers Claire

Hey I'm at the stage where a number of my creditors are likely to take me to court over disputed debts where there's been no true copy of the CCA provided. In fact, I'm probably hoping to come to court with it because then they'll have to produce beforehand what they claim to be the actual executed agreement! However, I could do with some help if anyone has particulars of claim as a counterclaim to them pursuing me for the monies. Please please please. Thanks and cheers Claire

Hey Could do with some advice please, chaps and chapettes. Following the CCA route with a number of my creditors, all of which have done the blank reconstituted thing with new unsigned (and previously not shared with me!) terms and conditions. Using the CAG templates, thought I'd got my head round it. Because they've not given me proper copies, refusing to pay any of them without them providing properly executed CCA. And now MBNA and AA have both sold the disputed debts on, despite these being disputed and despite no enforceable CCA being provided. The Ombudsman has already said in the case of MBNA that a court must rule on enforceability. The issue is that, as per the guidance, I reported MBNA to Trading Standards for unfair trading. As I've previously posted on another thread, WY Trading Standards have a different take on the whole unfair trading thing to what other CAGers seem to be getting from their local Trading Standards, and it'd be useful if people could post their responses from their Trading Standards which DO agree with the CAG templates. The gist of WY Trading Standards final response in refusing to take up unfair trading with MBNA is; - creditor not prevented from enforcing a debt for which they've not provided the original executed agreement even when the account is clearly in dispute, when MBNA have been told the debt is in dispute and should not according to the Banking Code and ICO be taking enforcement action on a disputed debt. - CCA 1974 repealed, so MBNA don't need to provide a properly executed agreement and don't need to have both signatures nor prescribed terms on a CCA for it to be regarded as properly executed - even though the agreement was before the repeal and so should have been properly executed with signatures and prescribed terms at the time. - say that I appear to be disputing the collection methods, not that I owe the money; when I'm disputing what's owed because the agreement is unenforceable. - don't seem to understand that what I'm complaining about is the fact that they're taking enforcement action on disputed accounts when the companies have subscribed to the Banking Code which means they've breached this Code which is contractual. Any guidance? Seems ridiculous to me that other Trading Standards are wholly supportive when WY Trading Standards don't agree at all with CAG's position. Thanks and cheers, Claire

Hey Just had a very dispiriting telephone conversation with West Yorkshire Trading Standards to whom I complained about MBNA's enforcement action whilst they've failed to comply. I've been using the templates off CAG in dealing with MBNA and reading through the guidance which has informed my understanding of the CCA. But what Trading Standards say is opposite to the text of the CCA templates, that: (1) it's no longer an offence for any financial company to fail to comply with a CCA request within 12+30 days under Repeals and Revocations in Schedule 4 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which came into force on 26/5/08. So the timescales mean nothing, and it's therefore no wonder that they don't send you anything at all but carry on harassing you while they're not complying. (2) With regard to taking enforcement action while they're in breach by not sending you the CCA, it's only a breach which 'would not be looked upon favourably'. I then referred to the Credit Services Association's code, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008 and the OFT's guidelines on debt collection unfair methods, saying that my understanding was that failing to comply with a code of conduct to which you have subscribed is unfair trading. The response was they could only ask the company to explain its actions and it would be a breach, but one which would not require them to put it right. So they're allowed to register a default and harass you, and if you're lucky they only get a slap on the wrist which doesn't resolve the situation?!! Why is it worth doing it at all, taking up more of your time and effort whilst not preventing the harassment and defaults? How is this remotely protecting the consumer from unfair trading/unfair contract terms? (3) While it's true they can't enforce an agreement without a true copy, it can apparently be a reconstituted copy which doesn't have to be signed or dated (under Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and Copies of Document Regulations 1983). It doesn't matter if it doesn't have your signature and date (which it doesn't because they've never sent it to me, but they don't have to prove they ever did send it to me) and they can claim it IS a true copy reconstituted without providing the original to compare it to in order to prove it as being a true copy, or prove I ever saw this. So they CAN send me my application form without their corresponding signature or date and these blank terms and conditions which may or may not be anywhere near the same, and this would be considered both compliance with the legislation AND an enforceable agreement. This seems to be to be opposite to all the CAG guidance and templates. Now the documentation I've got from any of the credit companies don't have both signatures on and my understanding was that this was an absolute; if they want to enforce the agreement, they must provide a true original copy with both signatures on it. How can you prove it's not enforceable, and conversely the company prove it IS enforceable, without having to comply with the absolute minimums? If it's a contract upon which the company wants to rely, surely they should have to prove I agreed to that contract? So, they don't have to provide the original copy AND don't need to provide a copy with signatures or prescribed terms, even if they are relying on those documents to prove enforceability. I know that not providing a true copy/complying with the CCA doesn't mean that the alleged debt itself doesn't exist, but surely it has to be proved somehow? They can just whip up an A4 terms and conditions which makes it enforceable, never send to to me or get my signature, not even date it, and then use that to prove a contractual agreement? Trading Standards say I can send evidence of their enforcement actions and prove they breached the guidance and code, but if they only then ask the company to explain its actions and don't even take any action, why is it remotely worth my time and effort? It's not even a midge up against an elephant in terms of MBNA giving a darn or putting it right. Can someone please explain the discrepancy between the templates and the legislation? Where is the protection for the individual consumer in all this? I'm loathe to carry on with using the templates for my other credit companies if they're wrong or I've misunderstood. Thanks in advance for your help. Cheers Claire

Hey Just had a very dispiriting telephone conversation with West Yorkshire Trading Standards to whom I complained about MBNA's enforcement action whilst they've failed to comply. I've been using the templates off CAG in dealing with MBNA and reading through the guidance which has informed my understanding of the CCA. Trading Standards say that: (1) it's no longer an offence for any financial company to fail to comply with a CCA request within 12+30 days under Repeals and Revocations in Schedule 4 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which came into force on 26/5/08. So the timescales mean nothing, and it's therefore no wonder that they don't send you anything at all but carry on harassing you while they're not complying. (2) With regard to taking enforcement action while they're in breach by not sending you the CCA, it's only a breach which 'would not be looked upon favourably'. I then referred to the Credit Services Association's code, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008 and the OFT's guidelines on debt collection unfair methods, saying that my understanding was that failing to comply with a code of conduct to which you have subscribed is unfair trading. The response was they could only ask the company to explain its actions and it would be a breach, but one which would not require them to put it right. So they're allowed to register a default and harass you, and if you're lucky they only get a slap on the wrist which doesn't resolve the situation?!! How is this remotely protecting the consumer from unfair trading/unfair contract terms? (By the way, WY Trading Standards' response is that they enact the law whether it's fair or not and should be picked up with your local MP...) (3) While it's true they can't enforce an agreement without a true copy, it can apparently be a reconstituted copy which doesn't have to be signed or dated (under Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and Copies of Document Regulations 1983). It doesn't matter if it doesn't have your signature and date (because they've never sent it to me) and they can claim it IS a true copy reconstituted without providing the original to compare it to or prove I ever saw this. So they CAN send me my application form without their corresponding signature or date and these blank terms and conditions which may or may not be anywhere near the same, and this would be considered both compliance with the legislation AND an enforceable agreement. This seems to be to be opposite to all the CAG guidance and templates. Now the documentation I've got from any of the credit companies don't have both signatures on and my understanding was that this was an absolute; if they want to enforce the agreement, they must provide a true original copy with both signatures on it. How can you prove it's not enforceable, and conversely the company prove it IS enforceable, without having to comply with the absolute minimums? So, they don't have to provide the original copy AND don't need to provide a copy with signatures or prescribed terms, even if they are relying on those documents to prove enforceability. I know that not providing a true copy/complying with the CCA doesn't mean that the alleged debt itself doesn't exist, but surely it has to be proved somehow? They can just whip up an A4 terms and conditions which makes it enforceable, never send to to me or get my signature, not even date it, and then use that to prove a contractual agreement? Trading Standards say I can send evidence of their enforcement actions and prove they breached the guidance and code, but if they only then ask the company to explain its actions and don't even take any action, why is it remotely worth my time and effort? It's not even a midge up against an elephant in terms of MBNA giving a darn or putting it right. Can someone please explain the discrepancy between the templates and the legislation? Where is the protection for the individual consumer in all this? I'm loathe to carry on with using the templates for my other credit companies if they're wrong or I've misunderstood. Thanks in advance for your help. Cheers Claire

Maybe we could do a How To cookery book: turn heat to 220 and bake them slowly over hot coals... Ta, tis nice not to be in alone. Cheers Claire

Hey folks Well, it turns out that though the Ombudsman told me that they had no jurisdiction they DID tell MBNA to send me the CCA - so the b*gg*rs now have sent me it. And yep, months afterwards but still saying 'just an admin mistake, underlying agreement would still be valid without our providing it'. Not entirely sure what the point of the Ombudsman giving them more time to find it is; when the legalities of statutory timescales are totally clear and that's why they can't deny they broke the law. They take the opportunity to say the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over them, it's a legal matter. Plus it's all dated 14th/30th September and postage stamp says different. If, as you point out, MBNA's tactic is to produce these well out of time and then just act as if that's okay, is everybody then waiting til MBNA take them to court? Do I now just have to wait until MBNA passes it to a debt collection agency/starts legal proceedings, when I could really do without this hanging over me. I can see text for a court claim (is a court claim the same as asking for a court order? arrgh, HELP!!) about the prescribed terms/improperly executed but nothing which starts at the fact they didn't comply when they acknowledged they'd had it. Surely, that's the main focus of my application for court order, then IF the court says 'well, hey, swing the law, you've got it now', I challenge the enforceability? But to the 'CCA' response itself. 'CCA' and application form. Application form has subheading 'credit agreement regulated' etc. The application form has my signature and date 9/11/98, no box for an actual signature from MBNA, but does have an illegible scrawl and date stamp 26/1/99 (ie. over two months after my date). It also has a handwritten set of numbers which I don't recognise. No prescribed terms on front: the second page of the application form has financial & related information with a box for my previous address which is handfilled in. No default charges on the application form financial information. Say they'll choose to vary the credit limit (so no credit limit at all), APR table rather than interest rate, how minimum payments will be calculated. In the bit above the box for my signature (with no room for theirs), it says 'I have received a copy of and agree to be bound by the MBNA credit card terms and conditions'. When this is an application form... No right to cancel. Reference number on front, not on back. What they have provided as a CCA, the cover letter refers to as the most recent terms and conditions (ie. not the ones which would have been current in 1998 when I took the card out). Neither the creditor's nor the debtor's signature is not on what they say is the CCA, ie. not on the same document in any which way, not even a pretence of it. Blank mailer, no signatures on the mailer at all, no space for them even. No date on it at all (nor proof in any way that I've seen this which, by the way, I haven't). This lovely, blank, supposed CCA has my current address on when I was at a different address when I took out the card - as per the application form. So I would assume if they're claiming that this is a revised CCA with the correct/new address on it, it would have to be signed by both parties? So it's unexecuted and therefore unenforceable. Says they'll choose to vary the credit limit (so no credit limit at all), interest rate 'variable', how minimum repayment is calculated. So, in terms of deciding enforceability: the application form doesn't have both signatures and not all the prescribed terms on second page; the blank CCA is actually 'current terms and conditions', has no signatures at all, prescribed terms not complete. Not on same document. I'll fire off a letter confirming that this has been provided out of time, but is in any case unexecuted. But any guidance would be welcome, especially about how I go about applying for a court order and any text I could use. Thanks again. Cheers, Claire

Hey Thanks muchly for your tips. I've been trucking on working through the guidance. So I've complained to the Office of Fair Trading (who said they'd keep it on file because they need quite a few complaints about one firm to reach a certain threshold before they intervene, ho hum) and they sent me to the FOS. I've also complained to the Informationer Commissioners Office but not heard anything as yet. The FOS response has specifically said it has to be a court order because MBNA have admitted they received the request but then failed to produce. As they haven't produced anything at all (never mind claiming it's not executable), then I need to apply for a court order. So I have no choice about taking the court route: that's the 'how to' bit I'm short on. Given that they've already broken the '12 statutory days/extra 30 days default', it's not that I want them to now produce the damn thing which if there's an order for disclosure, would give them the opportunity to sidestep their own non-compliance and suddenly go 'hey presto'. I think my concern about the PPI/charges is that I don't want them to say 'well, we'll knock it off what you owe us' when the whole point of their not producing it makes it wholly unenforceable and then theoretically the court order says so and the debt gets written off... And then I chase the PPI and charges ??! Think will wait on that one until have no debt to the beggars. Cheers again, Claire

Eyup. I've been corresponding with Gail Powell, MBNA Customer Services Vice-President, over my CCA request - the CCA hasn't been provided at all within either the statutory 12 days or the further allowable 30 days (first asked in July). I submitted to the Ombudsman who's directed me to apply for a court order as unenforceable. Does anyone know of/have any template Particulars of Claim for applying for said court order? As there's no CCA, I also want to start the process of then applying for my bank charges and missold PPI back. Not sure if best to apply for court order to get it declared unenforceable first, or if okay to start the claim for bank charges/PPI back at the same time, or if to do one court claim for all three things? Any guidance would be much appreciated. Ta. Claire

Thanks for this. Yep, it's all in writing that the additional arrears was £808 so this mythical £1500 is still a mystery. Good idea about the SAR though, thanks muchly. Cheers Claire

Eyup. I've been involved in a longwinded feud with nPower which has proceeded to stalemate by their escalation team, and I just don't know enough to be sure of my ground in taking it further. I first joined nPower in 2004, and since then have paid monthly £111 for Dual Fuel. Meter readers come every quarter, but the bills have always been estimated - their previous excuse being that the meter readings weren't processed in time for the bill but it never then turned to actual, so I never had an actual-to-actual bill. However, they've done the regular 'you need to pay more' thing (which implied they did know my accurate consumption) and I've kept up to date with all these payments. In January, I suddenly ended up with a gas bill for £808 arrears (on top of what I'd already paid them monthly) for which I had never been billed. nPower has admitted they should have put the correct readings on, especially as I'd previously chased them with correct readings and about correct actual readings not appearing on the bill. At the same time, I was getting electric bills showing me in credit to the tune of £369. When I finally got detailed readings from them, it transpired this was predominantly from 2/12/07 (a date just before which I had been away from home 5 months in hospital after a serious accident). So I quoted the Back Billing Code at them, to which they've now said they've written £1500 off for the gas under this code. This is their fallback position; that they've already written £1500 off - when, by their own industry regulation, they aren't allowed to bill me for arrears over 12 months old when it was their fault. So it's not like goodwill or a favour they've done me, now is it? I can add up, so funnily enough if they've written off £1500 when I only supposedly owed £808, surely my account would be in credit? I asked for corrected bills showing that this £808 arrears was indeed only from the last 12 months but this hasn't been forthcoming in any kind of legible language. I also wanted to know how my monthly Direct Debit was split between gas, electric and arrears, because the next bill had taken the £369 electric credit and applied it to the gas arrears without my explicit consent. The meter reader didn't turn up (which left me wondering if they'd sacked him, when he'd certainly done his job and was always such a sweet bloke) so I sent yet more correct readings. My new bill now says: - the electric was also incorrectly billed despite the saga with the gas (and again; no actuals on bills, no sign of the Back Billing Code being applied to the electric at all, no backdated bills to show that I'm only being charged for the last 12 months, etc etc) - I've supposedly now spent an additional £800 on gas in the last quarter (which is more than I've spent on gas from 2004-2008... hohum) - so, I now owe them an additional £1500 arrears for both gas and electric on top of the £111 per month when the £111 is already 17.5% of my income!! In addition, as I'm disabled and need the heating on in winter because otherwise I literally can't walk and become housebound, I should have been on their Spreading Warmth (hahaha) social tariff since May 2007 - and that has been confirmed to them in writing. nPower have this on record because I keep getting their Staying Warm promotional crapola (another hahaha). So I should be getting an additional annual discount of £125 (excl VAT) for each fuel. Again, because I can count, that means there should be a £250 discount on there somewhere (alongside the £100 dual fuel discount) - and again, their statements are so jargontastic I cannot see this being applied! So, what now? Is there something I'm missing or need to do? EnergyWatch won't look into it until the Escalation Team come back and they just keep citing this supposed favour of writing off the gas Back Billing. Aargh. Any advice or suggestions gratefully received. Ta muchly Claire

Groan...

Thank you. It was Halifax County Court, Judge Shin. Cheers Claire