Yes but the problem is why should you have to pay more in interest for paying them by debit card.

As for Direct Debit even if you cancel them it gives them the right to go back in and set them up

so for example if you were disputing an amount you owed them and you cancelled the Direct debit

all they need to do is resend instructions to the bank and they can get their money.

My point is that you should not have to pay more in interest for paying by debit card than you do via direct debit

after all most payment systems for paying by card are actually automated now anyway.

Personally as a former CAB advisor I think this is a pathetic excuse to cash in on people that prefer to control what they pay and when they pay it and by how they pay it.

I have always paid by debit card and prefer this as it gives me full control of how much I want to pay

and I always pay them on time so again is it fair to treat loyal good paying customers in this unequal way

baring in mind it creates and unequal relationship as those that want to pay by debit card will have to pay an extra 3.58% per annum

some people who only have basic bank account can't even get direct debits so because their bank is not providing a direct debit facility for their account they will have to pay more.

As a former CAB Advisor I would be in favour of capping interest rates anyway as they are way to high but to increase the rates just because a customer

wants to pay by debit card is bizarre they seem to be the only creditor I know who is doing that?

If it is about a processing fee for making a payment why don't they just do what shops do and charge a small transaction fee of 50P or something.

Hey all,

Got an urgent warning for JD Williams and Jacamo customers.

it seems the company in a crafty attempt to get customers to agree to set up a Direct Debit

and give them total control of when and where and how much they take out of your account

have decided that as of the 7th of February 2014

customers who pay by debit or credit card will have to pay 37.68% interest

where as customers who pay by direct debit will be able to continue to enjoy interest rates at 34.1%.

This change means that if you want to be in control of where when and how much you want to pay

you will now have to pay 3.58% more than those paying by direct debit.

Surely this should be in breach of the Unfair terms and conditions in consumer contract regulations

but what a way to treat loyal customers

to me this is a kin to bullying either you give them control of where when and how much they take from your bank account

or you pay them more for choosing where when and how much to pay.

What a way to treat loyal customers JD and Jacamo just trample all over them.

I say we should all write to them and protest about this tactic.

Not very amused with them at all.

Robert

What I find interesting Brigadeer is the fact they openly admitted they cant make since out of their own information and found their reporting to equifax and internal records confusing clearly bt did not learn their lesson about equifax banning them from reporting in the past either or that they must love confusing themselves lol!

Robert

Will look forward to the response Robert!

Well Brigadeer,

You ready for the news? Drum role please. After talking to bt customer review service as you know they phoned me up well Lee has contacted me this morning and to milk the suspense ha ha ha he said that he was communicating with equifax and the data controller at bt as well as looking at the other issues I raised. Well his reply did not mention miss selling however in an email to me this morning after I missed his call he said that he was sorry for the confusion caused and that it was clear there was confusion over the amounts owing reported on both accounts and that this confusion was as a result of bt's reporting on the account statuses as well as confusion to the start date among other things. As a result of the proof I provided him he could see that the start dates on the accounts did not match with what bt had told equifax nor did the amount owing on each account.

As a result of this he felt it would take a very long time to sort out and would need to be cleared up and that as this could take sometime he has decided that it would be in neither mine or bt's interest for to carry out a lengthy investigation as to try and get to the bottom of the confusion. As a result of the fact it would be in neither mine or bt's intereast to drag out a lengthy investigation to get to the bottom of the confusion he has agreed to "remove all the charges in relation to the accounts in question and that no further follow up of any historic balance will occur" and further to this he stated he would contact the credit refrence agency and ask them to remove all infrormation relating to these accounts.

In other words what he is saying I think what he is saying but in a round about way is we will write off the debts owing and remove the account entries on your credit file as we have not complied with the data protection act and you where write to question us on that although he does not say that I think that is what he is trying to say.

I note they dodge the miss selling bit but hey if they are going to write off the debts and remove the accounts from my credit file as far as I am concerned it is win win. I must say though why customer services could not see what I was trying to tell them and why corney could not see it when I showed him proof of this but Lee from the Complaint review service could see that the information being reported was confusing and in breach of DPA and subsequently agreed to remove it I do not know.

As for the data controller well he will be eating his own words when he is ordered to remove the two accounts from my credit file completely just after trying to tell me they where right and I was wrong even when I showed him proof to back this up he will have to eat a large does of humble pie as will equifax who had previously refused to remove the defaulted entery and the other account on the grounds they did not have the power to and I was wrong although I will hand it to them after quoting them chapter and verse of ICO guidance and providing them with the ICO guidance book and reffering them to the specific paragraphs with the threat of legal action they did get back in touch with bt and after complaint review service gets in touch with them in realtion to the accounts they will have no other option barring to remove it and all before I get to see what ICO had to say about it though they will probably email me anyway to confirm what ICO thinks anyway.

With a smile on my face I can say thanks to you guys and a 4 page letter from me along with a copy of ico guidance for bt and equifax it is a victory maybe a small one but hey a victory non the less and I have even asked bt to write a letter stating they have agreed to write of the debt and remove the account entries from my credit file and have wrote to equifax to confirm this and by remove I mean deleted and they have agreed to provide the letter so if something ever did happen I can confirm that the debt no longer exist and bt agreed to remove their default.

So thats another defaulted entry of my credit file with equifax now if I could just get t mobile to remove theirs I would have a lovely spring cleaned credit file in a years time. Anyway that was a nice little belated birthday present bt delivered me in my inbox this morning and hey I started my complaint at the age of 27 and got it resolved at the age of 28 lol just too bad they had not delivered it to me on the 17th which would have been my birthday but hey its the though that counts lol.

So Folks thanks for your help on this one.

Robert

Well some progress at least, don't let it rest!!

They have got back to me next week I get their final response however they got my letter and my complaint from equifax and I am sure the ico guidelines I sent equifax but the letter laid it out clear to them either the account started in 09 or the account 4321 started in 08 if it started in 09 then I could not be responsible for it as I was with talk talk or the account started in 08 in which case they billed me for the same services on the same line twice and breached the Data protection act I also stated my complaint about miss selling financial hardship and mental health problems still stand but in relation to 1234 as account 4321 could not be mine as during 09 I was with talk talk tied in to a years contract. but either way they have to write it off and remove the entry for account 4321 as I cannot be responsible for it.

I also reminded them the serious nature of breaching the dpa and contract law as well as registering information which impacts heavily on my credit file which is not accurate. I reminded them that if they do not agree to write off account 1234 on grounds of financial difficulties it may force me into bankruptcy and make my mental health worse and also if they do not write off 4321 they will be sued for breach of the data protection act publishing in accurate information on me without permission and also breach of contract law.

In the letter I laid it out to them quite clearly and they say they are taking everything into account concerns raised with equifax as well as the letter to bt which runs to 4 pages in length and the proof I provided and what I said to Mr Corney etc he said I can assure you we will take that into account when we make our final decission next week he must have seen his colleagues emails as in fact he knew the call was recording and was happy about that and agreed to all the terms I stated about sharing the call with selected third parties.

So we will see if they come back with a different answer to corney although I do not hold out hope of this. Would be intereasting to see what you lot think.

Robert

Hey all I have heard from bt Karen Fennel complaint review services but have missed her call so I sent her an email asking her to make all contact by emails but if she must phone I have set up an 070 number which I have given her which will put her through to me but all calls will be recorded and may be shared with Government agencies such as OFT, Department for trading Standards and Information Commissioner as well as to Ofcom for purposes of backing up complaints or for seeking advice on my rights. I also let them Know I may provide information to selected third parties such as CAB and other agencies or people for the purposes of proving what was said by whom and also seeking advice on my legal rights. I made it clear I would also share recordings with my solicitor for the purposes of legal advice and also taking legal action if necessary as well as to my carer to back up what I have said and what BT have said. I made it clear to her that calls will be charged at 50p a minute pending on her network provider and calls from other providers and mobiles will be considerably more and that information will be deleted when I am satisfied this compalint has been dealt with to my satisfaction.

After raising a complaint and providing proof to equifax of the accounts actual start date I got a reply from Equifax that they heard back from bt and the data controller maintains the information is accurate and that they are unable as custodians to change this. I replied back stating that whilst I recognize that the ICO says Equifax may have defence against legal action I pointed out that ICO cannot gaurantee this and that recent cases has stated anyone who shares information weather or not provided by a third party or not for others to see is deemed as a publisher and that under uk law as a publisher they have a duty to make sure the information is accurate and that as they provide this information to other creditors in exchange for a subscription fee I consider them to be a publisher and therefore there claim they are only custodians as without foundation.

I also went on to ask them if they could read as if they could they would see that the information provided contradicts the information they sent me in a letter which clearly states the start date of the account was supposedly 2009 not 2008 therefore the entry on my credit file is in breach of ICO rules. I rather cheekly provided them with a copy of the ICO guidelines and made it clear to them they should look at certain ones which state the information provided should be clear and the information should relate to the time the account was in operation I also pointed them to the fact that they should register a default within 6 months not 14 months of the last payment being recieved and reminded them bt policy was that they would not give a person a second account whilst they still owed bt and therefore it would have been imposible for me to get a second account as I still owed bt and also was in fact at that time a customer of talktalk. I provided them with a copy of ICO guidelines and told them that should they be having problems reading the letter or ico guidance to phone me and I would read it to them.

After my rather cheeky response to them reminding them of ico rules and pointing them back to bt's letter I seem to have got somewhere I also reminded them they had stopped bt previously registering information in the past due to concerns about the quality of information. Equifax has now said that they are greatful to me for this information and will now contact bt to re exmaine their records again in light of the new evidence before they just kept saying contact bt so hopefully equifax will see since and remove the account 4321 as it does not take a genius to work out if an account supposedly started in 2009 by bt's own admission then it cannot possibly have started in 2008 with a late payment registered in december 2008 therefore hopefully they will finally agree to remove it but I did make it clear I would directly sue bt as well as equifax for breaching the data protection act if they do not agree to remove it and will not consider their claim to be valid that they are only a custodian of the records as they are benefiting monetarily from the publishing of this information and as a result will persue them as well.

Anyway apologise for spelling mistakes and lack of punctuation and grammar but this is where we are at so far.

Robert

Brigadeer

You hit the nail on the head they admit account 1234 is actually mine and still has a debt owing it relates to 23/05/2008 and was transferred to debt collection agency on the 29/01/2009 the debt was shown as satisfied by bt in december 2010 no default that is account 1234 not 4321 but bt still insist that everything is correct and refuse to remove their default I have forwarded a copy of this to ICO scotland to see what they say if they agree with me that this is a breach of the DPA I will forward a copy of that email to bt CEO team to see what they do though I am still waiting on them to reply however if you listen to bt 2009 is way in the past and 2008 in the most recent entry lol do bt have any brain cells in their staff or are they all as thick as two short planks. I have no doubt this breaches the DPA and will be fighting like hell against them they say the written of the debt for 4321 as in fact it was due to hardship and not miss selling bt vision yet the account I really meant the complaint for they wont write off and wont remove their default how annoying do they need to be. Brig I shall send a copy of the complaint with a section 10 notice and do it by registered post.

One good thing is Mr corney did agree to send it to the compalint resolution service though he has tried to tell me they will agree with him which I have no doubt they probably will crooks always do stick together.

Robert

Hey all

Update

Finally got the full bt account numbers but also got some useful info from mr corney in the letter

the defaulted account which if you have read past posts is 4321 Was active from 13/05/2009 to 19/06/09

which I find amusing as bt have told equifax account 4321 was active from 2008 and defaulted 14 months afterwards

which means it would have defaulted before the account even started but

further to this they confirm 1234 is my account and it has a debt still owing for it but this was the debt I disputed but

what amuses me is they written off the debt for 4681 stating I owed them it but due to financial difficulties they would write it off

yet I told them this was not my account but they are still refusing to remove the default they registered against my credit file for this account

even though I know I was only a bt customer until 2008 with the account officially being passed to debt collection in january 09

I never was with bt in on the 13/05/2009 to the 19/06/2009 as in fact I was with another provider by then

and tied in to a years contract further to this

bt do not usually give you another account unless you pay of your existing debt with bt first so

I find it amazing they claim that the entry on my credit file for account 4321 is valid when in fact thire own letter states it is impossible

as the account would have been defaulted before it was even a valid account.

Bt really are taking the biscuit with this one.

I must admit I have had a good laugh at them for this one as it really is taking the biscuit defaulting an account before it even became an account that has to be a new one on me.

What do you all think I should do I did send an email to the ceo but the bt chief executive team have hijacked it and I am still waiting on one of them getting back to me on this.

Robert

Update for yous after the dis service from the mokeys I have sent the BT ceo proof of the two account entries and explained the circumstances two him including the fact that bt had miss sold bt vision to me back in 2008 and that if I wanted I could legally take bt to court over this but have decided not to in the hope that he will agree to remove the defaulted account entry that was registered against my credit file for account 4321 which I pointed out to him is not my valid account number and that account 1234 according to their customer services dept is the only account number I have with bt I also pointed out to him that when asked to provide details for both accounts through equifax they both relate to the same debt and are for the same amount with the same start date but conflicting information I also pointed out to him that it is against ico rules to register conflicting information on a credit file for the same debt and Pointed to him that bt did not register a default which ico states should be done within 6 months of last reciving a payment but did this 14 months afterwards which I stated I found suspicious and that his hired goons did not use that word of course to him but thats what they are tried to tell me these two accounts where valid and correct even though they both relate to the same debt and that they tried to tell me that the accounts related to two different periods when I was a bt customer in spite of the fact i only ever was with bt once and had one account number and both accounts have the same start date and I provided him with proof of this so he cannot deny it I then asked him for the sake of bts reputation to consider removing these defaults I also told him what affect this had on my mental health and provided him with proof and stated if he does not remove it I will make a complain to ICO and will persue legal action if necessary stating that i hoped he would see since when looking at the information provided and this letter and instruct the goons below him to remove the defaulted entry so I guess we shall see what he says the letter is 2200 and odd pages as I gave him a lesson on miss selling products and breaking scottish contract law as well as breaching DPA sent it off a few minutes ago so it should be in his inbox in time for the morning. One things for sure if he starts spouting the same rubish as the goons below then I will never go back to bt again and in fact I shall complain to ico and even if necessary get my lawyer on the case but there is no way they are getting away with this one.

I am still submitting a sar request though I want all the info they have in relation to the two accounts so that I can examine it with a fine tooth comb as I know I only had one account even the guy from their customer services said it.

The usual procedure is for a creditor to default an account before sale, the ICOs Technical Guidance on defaults says that defaults 'SHOULD NORMALLY BE PLACED WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION (note the should and normally). but there are exceptions.

 

I think perhaps you should send a SAR to BT now.

Hey brig heard back they are trying to say the default relates to a seperate account that just happens to have the same amount owing and the same start date I find this strange as in fact I have one phone line one broadband and one tv in my house so how can you have two accounts with the same services on it as a result I am sending sad for everything and they registered the default in 2010 but the last payment was made in 2008 which I found even stranger.

This is turning out to be an interesting fight after all.

This is really intereasting bt have showen a late payment during december 2008 some in 09 january through to april to be precise then they are showing then may as not updated then jun 2009 to January 2010 as queried even though I have never queried it they then have registered the default in february 2010 14 months of late payment before they default the account the sar I am sending them should turn up some intereasting stuff then but one thing it can tell me is why they left it so late to register a default agaimst the account I also asked equifax to ask them for full detail on the satisfied account of when last payment was made on it what did it include and a copy of all the letters between me and bt as well as a copy of all emails all telephone calls and all information shared with the credit reference agencies and debt collectors just to see if they will supply it for the satisfied account to prove to equifax this debt exists or if they will make me go through the SAR route just to be akward to them I am trying all routes to get info on when the accounts where in operation when last payment was made and so on. I thought it would be worth a try to see if I can trip them up over their own rope.

I think it will be intereasting to see what they provide and what the sar turns up I think.

Robert

Just to let you know

the guy who agreed to write off the debt has stated he will look at this issue further he is from customer resolutions team

after I pointed out to him it was an offence under the data protection act

to have conflicting information registered on a credit file for the same debts under two different account numbers

and that if this information was not sorted I would have it removed by court order

and also that I would make a complaint to ico

he has had the first day already today so i should hear back tomorrow

if not I will email him just before the close of day to see what is happening and to keep up the heat.

If they don't remove the defaulted entry which is registered under an account which is according to their customer services not valid

I will register a complaint with ICO as well as there data controller and MD to turn up the heat even more.

I certainly wont be letting them get away with this one.

I will also request all information relating to these accounts especially previous communications with

debt collection agency

credit reference agencies

and myself

as I have a sneaking suspicion when they re registered the default

they may have put it back on a later date

as equifax prohibited bt from entering information for a long time

till they could satisfy them all the customer accounts

they where entering info on was correct

if can find info on this I might be able to remove it by force

then as in fact they have a whole year and a half of missed payments

rather than having defaulted it then which makes me suspicious

that they may have lied to equifax to get a later date added on

to keep the file active for longer

if I am right and can find proof then I might be able to use that against them

if not I might make a complaint to ICO anyway to investigate why it taken them so long to default it

but I also want to see when they assigned the debt to a debt collection agency

as if they sold this debt to a debt collection agency and they did this before 2010

then I can also use this against them as they dont have the right to register a default

after they actually sold it on.

So I have a couple of areas to try if they dont agree to remove this info but wandered what you all think?

You will need to address a FORMAL COMPLAINT to the Data Controller at BTs Head office, the display of conflicting data on CRA files in this way is wrong.

 

The age old problem of customer complaints/customer (dis) service departments working within carefully delineated rules of a company script (BT has from inception had this problem) prevents complaints reaching the overpaid desk jockeys on the 6th floor who should ultimately take responsibility instead of huge bonus payments.

Brigadier I would agree with you there the funny thing is bt say it is correct however how can it be correct when it's so obviously conflicting with each other they should be able to see that but they can't see past the we are alway right rubbish they spout is it so hard to ask they get things right?

Bt stated that account number 4321 is not a valid account number and that account number 1234 is a valid account number

but they have registered a default on account 4321

I was only ever billed for account number 1234 and it included all three services but the info conflicts as they both are for the full amount of debt

one says settled

the other says defaulted

as far as I am aware there should only be one account number based on memory and what bt have said.

I am sure you can understand why I would like to know legally where I stand as the two bits of info relate to the same debt for the full amount

but with two different account numbers and two different conflictions as to the debts current status legally

what can I do to get this sorted as

bt aren't willing to sort it out and

equifax try to hide behind the we cant change it the info does not belong to us we are therefore exempt as we are merely publishing what the creditor says.

They of course stick to the creditors side after all they pay more for their services and they would not want to upset them now would they

this is why I wanted to know legally what can I do about this?

Thanks for that. I just find it confusing as to why they would give it two account numbers with conflicting evidence on each even though they relate to the same debt.

This is good news indeed

It is in deed they even had the cheek to tell me it was a one sided conversation as I knew my rights and they could not argue with me otherwise at one point they also said I was rude just because I told them to shut up and listen when they tried to talk over me and give me a whole whist of false info. Just goes to show you should never give up when you know your in the right.

Can I confirm that you live in Scotland ? I ask because I believe there is a different approach required

In reply to your post yes I live in Bonnie Scotland.

Just to let you know after disputing this with MMF who owned the debt they agreed to write off the whole of the debt and remove their defaults registered against my name with the credit refrence agencies it took a while but I wore them down and they gave up fighting with me so a great triumph for myself.

Hi all,

I need your help I find myself in a weird situation where

I recently checked my credit file to find that BT had registered two bits of information all relating to the same account number with Equifax

but the weird bit is they Show confliction

one entry shows an account with a different 4 digits ending and

the other shows another account with a different four digit ending

both relating to the exact same debt hope I haven't confused yous yet.

I recently contacted bt and they told me this was as a result of a bill incurred when I left bt for bt vision bt broadband and phone.

When I discussed this with bt I disputed the legitimacy of the sale of bt vision to me at the time as

I asked them if I needed to have freeview to be able to watch pause and record live tv

they said at the time of sale no

but to my shock and horror I did need it but

we could not get freeview at the time so I felt I should not be held responsible for this contract as bt had miss sold me a product

I would not have other wise bought

after all why by something you cannot use?

Bt said they did not accept this and when I told them at the time they had refused to take this back

they stated they could not find any proof of this and that there evidence at best was sketchy

I told them this was having an adverse affect on my mental health and causing a great deal of distress to me due to this issue

and quoted them chapter and verse of Scottish contract law and miss representation which may lead to a consumer entering in to a contract

they would not other wise do so and the consequences and what Scots law said from the stair memorial encyclopedia

after some debate they agreed to write off this debt but failed to agree to remove two account entries from my debt

stating it had nothing to do with miss selling and was instead on grounds of my mental health.

When I first contacted bt I gave them the account number for the account which had been defaulted

and they told me they could not find such an account and

when I gave them the account number for the one which showed as settled

they told me this was in fact the correct account

they then stated that the account had been passed on to the debt collection agency and that as far as they where concerned was settled

but that bt had registered a default on the 17/03/2010 but

despite the fact that there own customer service agent states say for example account 1234 was the correct account

the only default I can find is registered on a different account number say 4321.

Now bt have refused to remove the two accounts

what I would like to know is

did bt breach the data protection act by Giving this debt two separate conflicting entries under two separate account numbers

when in fact it relates to one account in this case say 1234 and by their own admission

they where unable to find any such account ending 4321

is this a breach of the DPA?

The reason I ask is there are two separate accounts with conflicting information on my credit file pulling down my credit rating

and it seems like to me bt deliberately is attempting to miss lead people by giving these accounts two separate account numbers

when in fact they all relate to the same account

which according to their agent is supposed to be account 1234.

I feel like they may have broken the rules possibly even the law

but legally where do I stand

can i insist this is sorted in to one account number instead of two

or that this is removed as it is in violation of the DPA or what?

I must say I find it highly suspicious as to why they would give it two separate account numbers for the same debt

and also strange why they would have the two separate account numbers show conflicting evidence

can someone help me here

please I am confused as to how to approach this one a

nd why bt feels the need to give the one debt two different account numbers?

I hope yous can see why I am seeking your help on this one

as I find it really strange in relation to posting two separate entries on my credit file with equifax stating conflicting info for the same debt.

Robert

Ok Here is the so called creditagreement they sent me as stated I refuse to acknowledge this untill they send me conclusive proof in the form of the Actual bank account details so I can check and see if it matches mines. I have a few concerns about this so called credit agreement firstly I think it may Breach the UTCCR Regs if you note they state they can charge you up to 130 for missed payment and 130 again in the second half for missed payment also the amount supposedly owed on the credit agreement does not match the £270 pounds they say I owe and it appears they can charge you £85.00 for reffering it to a DCA Does this breach the UTCCR regulation do you think Should I forward it to the OFT to look at with the others they are already looking at? See attachment

Neither think finance who where operating as 1 month loan nor MMF apear on my credit files so it will be intereasting to see if they dont provide me with the bank details I will make a gesture of good will payment making it clear I neither accept nor acknowledge responsobility for the debt and that it remains in dispute and subject to section 10 notice and any offer would be subject to them accepting that it is still in dispute and that they cannot register a default against my credit file.

It isn't on the credit file yet but they where made subjection to a section 10 notice so we will see how they reply I still am not sure if they own it or not but they are in charge and I am pretty sure one of the letters they sent me stated that think finance sold it to them.

I should also state they sent through the credit agreement digitally signed but I have asked for more information on what bank account it was paid in to why the debt does not match the original £195 plus £45 cost and why it is £270 as well as why I have never received a statement of the out standing balance which they should have sent each year I have also asked for an original copy of the default notice I am trying to get all my finances in order but if they do not give me a satisfactory answer they can go whistle till I get this information I cannot be satisfied I am responsible for the debt.

As for there debt collectors visit no explanation as to why they felt they could break the law and harras me despite knowing my mental health problems so I will also be writting to their directors demanding a formal apology from them as well as complaining to the oft. I will be making the OFT fully aware of there breach and if they come calling again boot and back side springs to mind until they provide me with further proof of the account the loan was paid in to and the payment was coming out.

It seems they may have added a £50.00 charge for referring it to the DCA according to the so called credit agreement if this is the case I will be challenging that under UTCCR Regs.

Actually MMF took over the ownership of the debt it was sold to them by think finance.

Well sent fax MMF ignored the fax today and sent a guy to visit my door which he did he was told I was not in and when I got the envelope furious with MMF I decided to call them on the free phone and not the 0844 number but dont worry I wasn't stupid enough to phone them and just trust them to record the truth instead I recorded the whole call to them using a record your call system which I set up I also told them to change the number for me and contact me on and 0872 number as when they do this it will record their calls every one of them and I can use this as proof against them. But depsite 15 emails from me and two faxes they choose to completely ignore they still sent someone to visit my home so that is another complaint going in to the oft. Also their cheeky agent told me the call was one sided. But the good news is I made them well aware of the fact they ignored my emails and fax and also they had failed to provide what I asked for as a result the account is on hold. But do check out the conversation I had with them and tell me all what you think? Also there free phone number is given below so any one else doesn't have to phone 0844 Note my refrences to the OFT Code. And do let me know what yous think?

Transcript of Call to MMF On the 15th of January 2013 time call took place 12:35 PM

Anthony: Good Afternoon your Calls come though to Anthony can I take your reference number please?

Me: Yes it is refrence given

Anthony: For data protection could I ask you to confirm your name and address?

Me: My name and address is given.

Anthony: And your Date of Birth?

Me: Date of birth is given.

Anthony: Ok Thank you ah just to confirm the contact details we have got the number you are calling from ends in gives last three digits of old number we also have an email that is gives out my email.

Me: Eh no the number is hold on and I will just see if I cant get it for you

Anthony: Sorry the one you’re actually calling from we have that on the system

Me: Eh what number is it you have got on the system?

Anthony: Well its the same number your calling from it ends with gives end of old number

Me: No thats not it.

Anthony: Thats the Number I can see hear your actually calling from it now

Me: No I am on another number.

Anthony: are you it must of diverted through or something have you a mobile number I can take sir.

Me: Eh I have got a number if you just give me a second I

Anthony interupts: No Worries take your time

me: get it up for you

Me: The number the number I have is gives first part because my landline isn’t working properly now

Anthony: Repeats first part yeah

Me: Yes gives rest of number

Anthony: Thank you Thats obviously a Landline isn’t it?

Me: Yes

Anthony: Right Ok lets have a look you’ve got and arrangement to pay the loan is with think finance about the loan so lets have a quick look at the arrangement I hear you where paying what was it about £5.00

Me: Em it was a gesture of good will payment of £5.00 yes

Anthony: Ok lets have a quick look then. Ok so there is something on going there how can I help you there in fact you set up an arrangement back in October for you to pay £5.00 ok?

Me: Yes

Anthony: Em and Yeah basically the payments in December actually failed. It is in arrears of £15.00 can you arrange to pay the arrears today?

Me: No I can’t I sent your company several Notifications by email that the account was in dispute.

Anthony: Right

Me: Now I sent them a section 10 notice under the data protection act and em that was also faxed through as well as emailed and I never got word back from your company but I kept getting messages from your company ever since there had been a problem with the Bacs system with the banks systems about sending someone to visit my home So I decided to cancel the eh arrangement

Anthony interrupts: the Arragement

Me Continues: Cancel the arrangement to make a gesture of good will payment baring in mind that in those emails I had stated I neither accepted nor acknowledge responsibility for this debt and I sent the section 10 notice and it basically said that I had requested information under section 78 of the consumer credit act now and that for some reason I still had not received the information I had requested.

Anthony: So what is it exactly that you want because I am just going to put your account on hold now and put the request through to admin?

Me: it is for and original signed or a true signed copy of the original credit agreement.

Anthony: Right there wont be an original signed copy of the credit agreement I am pretty certain this would have been done online Baiscally you have a terms and conditions that you have to agree to and you just click accept so you don’t have to sign anything.

Me: There is still a requirement under Scottish law to provide an originally agreed copy signed digitally or otherwise.

Anthony: yeah that will be when the loan was originally took out in 2009 sent out you would have to go back to your old emails but your with Bt internet aren’t you so you can back log and go through those.

ME: Well I have actually asked yourselves for it

Anthony: mmm

Me: and you have a duty because you have taken over the debt to provide that and yous haven’t

Anthony: Yeah ok right I am going to put the account on hold right now and I am going to pass it on to admin to get you a copy of the original credit agreement.

Me: Thats fine! And there was also another notification sent to MMF because they kept insisting on sending someone to visit my home despite notification of myself

Anthony Interupts: Yeah

Me Continues: That I did not have any express wish for someone to make an appointment to call at my door. Now under the Office of Fair Trade Code of conduct you may only send someone to do so if I have an express wish to make an appointment with them to do so now I made it clear in several emails

Anthony: mmm

ME: As well as in a recent fax

Anthony Interupts: Ok well it does sound like eh you know your stuff

Me Interupts: well its just that

Anthony: Interupts: Its just a one sided conversation so I am going to put your account on hold and get the original credit agreement sent out to you.

ME: Thats fine.

Anthony: And you should get that in the next seven days.

ME: And you can guarantee that this will stop someone from visiting my home

Anthony interrupts: Yeah the home visits are just home visit they are not actually bailiffs as such so I think your reading in to it a little too much there where em there not actual bailifis coming round to break

Me interrupts: yeah but it doesn’t matter that

Anthony interupts: in and take goods to that value as such its just someone like myself wanting to have a word with you as simple as that

Me Interupts: Yeah but it doesn’t matter under the OFT Code it states that if you do that despite having been told not to it is actually deemed as a breach of the OFT code and by the Unfair debt collection practices and can be and is deemed as harrasement and now I have mental health problems and this is the last thing I need is something like that

Anthony interrupts: have you ok fair enough well I appreciate that obviously accept my appologies about that someone has called you and in convienced you about that.

Me: No problem

Anthony: I am going to hold the account now and I am going to put in a request for the original agreement you should have that in seven days.

Me: how long will that take?

Anthony: Seven days a week to maybe two weeks I can’t say

ME: Well thank you for that Bye Bye

Anthony: Thank you Sir for your comments about that Bye

Both parties hang up.

Time call lasted 9 mins 14 seconds Number MMF received their Call on 0800 996 1103

Just a wee update for you I heard back from MMF and decided I have had enough of them so I copied the email and sent it to them as a letter on microsoft word keeping the original without signing it I then set up my all in one printer and faxed the letter through to them printing of the memory report showing that the other fax machine received the documents and that the document was sent through ok this way if they intend to argue against me on this issue I will have some proof to back up my version of events. I have had a few days without hearing from them but we shall see what they do next perhaps I should send them it on a dictar phone in case they cant read printed text very well just to make sure they get the message lol!