Then BT should compensate for the loss of service then? I saw Sky's service the same way I see any other service provider. If the service provider relies on 3rd party service in order to provide the service to a consumer, but then can't provide that service due to a problem with the 3rd party supplier, then the service provider handles the customer complaint, and they in turn complain to the 3rd party provider. That's how most services providers would operate, so why not Sky?

Due to a fault on the line since last Monday that BT are in the process of fixing, hopefully by tomorrow, my broadband service has been also affected, resulting in constant dropping of connection, and massively reduced speeds when it is still working. BT have already confirmed they would issue a refund of the phoneline rental (though compensation for the massive inconvenience of missed calls is surely appropriate), however, Sky Broadband refuse to consider a refund on the grounds that it's BT's fault. Given I'm a customer of Sky for this particular service, I thought the responsibility would lie with them in the failure to provide a service, under Supply of Goods and Services Act? I can see no mention in their broadband contract http://www.sky.com/shop/terms-conditions/broadband/ that suggests I should waive my rights to that, so want to get some backup from here before I proceed. The alternative is that BT should offer compensation for loss of the service, though I suspect they will refuse to acknowledge responsibility for that. Aside from that legal argument, this is effectively the last straw, given I can get rid of Sky+ service and buy a freeview recorder, and switch my internet services to BT who would clearly be able to provide me a better customer service in this instance, Sky offer no competitive reason to stay with them any longer.

seems they phoned just to give me a ref number regarding my "complaint", and they'd be in touch again. No panic, but not really what I expected.

I wrote a letter to my "local" branch, e.g. the bank I set up the account at, 10+ years ago, about bank charges. Planning to go the FOS hardship route due to a number of reasons, explained the problem was compounded by bank charges and lack of overdraft facilities due to the type of account they forced me to take after getting in debt as a student. I sent this first class on Monday morning, and by Tuesday I apparently get a phone call from a personal banker at Barclays about my letter. I want to prepare myself before I phone them back, as it's highly unlikely they'll just be paying up the money I asked for. Presumably this call is either to tell me I can't claim as the banks won, or to try and encourage me to accept the refund of the last month's worth of charges. Has anyone else had a phone call from the bank after their initial letter? I was just expecting a template rejection letter so this has thrown me a little, and not sure what to expect.

Update: Was relatively pain free in the end, at least it appears to have been as we've not gotten the money back yet, but have got the debt struck off. Having phoned the catalogue (Simply Yours) in question again to request printed proof of the account balance and lack of debt, the person I spoke to this time investigated and was able to confirm there WAS an outstanding amount, which was why it had been passed to Moorcroft. They weren't able to tell me much other than that, so I got put through to another department at JD Williams, the parent company, who was able to give me a bit more information. Eventually after further probing it began to look like the item had been ordered and delivered to an address we would not have been leaving at the time, but she seemed reluctant to confirm over the phone until I'd sent proof. So I managed to get a copy of our tenancy agreement from the house that we'd moved to, showing the date we'd moved in, and faxed that off to the investigations team at JD Williams. A week and a half later, we've just received confirmation that the account will be amended, and that credit files will be amended accordingly. apologising for any inconvenience or upset caused. My fiancee had never actually ordered anything from that catalogue herself, except requesting a catalogue itself, before deciding they were too pricey, but subsequent seasonal catalogues that they send out would have been sent to the old address. It's a bit surprising that this was even possible, but also makes me wonder what else is on her (and my) credit files that have been due to fraudulent activities since we've moved. Apart from the original refund request from JD Williams (I got confirmation from both parties that Moorcroft were only working on their behalf, JD Williams still owned the debt), I wasn't planning to do anything in terms of compensation, but having seen the phone charges that have mounted up in chasing and confirming the problem, it's probably worth me requesting these charges back. Despite Moorcroft's heavy handed approach ("are you going to pay?" and so on) it's not really their fault that my fiancee paid them before actually disputing the debt, so I don't think I'll bother with them. I do wonder if it's worth me claiming compensation for the hassle and stress that has been caused by JD williams allowing someone to purchase something in my fiancee's name so easily, though?

It wouldn't have been brought up specifically, it would have just been "on behalf of", or words similar to that. This is part of the nformation that I will need to request from Moorcroft if I'm to be successful in chasing this up.

I'd be surprised if any/much duress was needed. There was a letter, she phoned them back to find out more. She assumed the debt was valid as she did have an account with the catalogue in question at one point, so she paid it there and then, because she's not in the habit of ignoring debt collection threats. She has now phoned the catalogue to close the account, and who has told her there was no debt, and the account has been inactive for years, and couldn't send her a statement because she hadn't ordered anything. So, I think I'm going to have to write to Moorcroft explaining the problem, but I expect I'll have to do all the ground work in investigating it before they'll refund the money. Which will mean writing to the catalogue and requesting information under DPA laws, and probably request information from Moorcroft to find out where they obtained the debt from, etc?

We had a letter from Moorcroft recently regarding a catalogue debt. It was paid to Moorcroft, but after phoning the catalogue to close the account they had no record of any debt. Any help on how to reclaim the money paid, and also fix any credit record problems that may have arisen from this? Smartarse answers about how it should have been ignored or confirming debt before paying up etc will not be useful - you're preaching to the converted, this is query on behalf of someone with less strength of conviction and doesn't like this sort of thing, which is why I'm only getting involved at this late stage.

they do seem to take a while to process, to be fair. After my last post about them only offering a partial settlement since they took over an LFI account, and telling me this was their final position on the matter should I choose to follow it up with the FOS, I sent them a final chance to resolve it themselves, showing them the schedule of fees dating back to 2005 when the account was first opened. I gave them 4 weeks to handle the query, and lo, on the last day possible, just as I was drafting my FOS complaint, they responded with a full settlement including £500 interest payments on top of the £3700 PPI premiums that had been paid. I think in all, this took about 3 and a half months to have it dealt with, from the initial request for info about the original PPI agreement, to the questionnaire, to an initial acceptance of no supporting evidence and partial refund, to the full refund we've received as of this week.

The landlord came to us 2 weekends ago to tell us that they plan to sell the house,effectively 2 months notice before our contract expires. We agreed to let them begin viewings, and they said they would recommend us as tenants if the new owners want to rent out. They said they would understand if we wanted to move out before then, but were quite happy for us to stick around (understandably as we probably continue to pay their mortgage). We've got a holiday for most of June, so we don't really want the uncertainty of sticking around, and have already found a place we like, and are ready to put down the deposit - but the thing that is stopping me is if we'd still be expected to pay the April rent if we moved out in march? I'm guessing the law is on their side, so all I can do is ask them nicely and hope they agree to waive the april rent as it'd make viewings easier?

We recently filled one of these in, after our initial letter saying we didn't recall agreeing to PPI in the first place and wanted proof that it was sold correctly. most of the questionnaire was filled out with "No" because it was asking about things like self employment, housewife, etc, which wasn't the basis of our claim. They wrote back shortly after offering the refund of PPI up to the point they'd taken over the account, so we wrote back thanking them for accepting that they had no sufficient evidence, and that we expected to be refunded the full amount from when PPI was first applied, 3 years earlier than when BC took over.

Yeah, looks like that's the address I sent it to - the last letter we've received certainly comes from Northampton.

Interesting outcome here. Barclaycard took over this account, and have been in touch to say that they can't find any evidence to prove PPI was sold within best practice guidelines, and are therefore refunding the money - however they've only gone back as far as when they took over Littlewoods Finance. This only amounts to roughly half what we originally asked for, with our list of charges showing all dates going back at least 4 years, but their included list only going back 2 years. They've not given any reason for why they've not included the earlier payments, but I suspect they're hoping we'll just settle with what they've offered, and not question it. They're asking for bank details so that they can refund the amount they've calculated, but I'm thinking we should write back and demand the full amount, given they've already admitted they have no evidence, so I don't think they can back down now - and even if they did, I'd just move onto the FOS?

Just chased up Littlewoods regarding late payments and charges on behalf of someone, and noticed they had PPI on the account. I had asked for 6 years worth of statements, but what they've sent me is from April 2005, so I guess this is when the account started. Given the credit limit was £2500, but increased to £3500 a few months in, and the person who had taken out the card was part-time employed, and essentially living off credit cards until their house was sold (which took longer than expected), you can imagine that paying the minimum payments each month eventually took their toll, with interest and PPI payments increasing month on month, so their final account balance when they finally managed to pay it all off was well over £6000. Having counted up all the PPI payments added to the account, this amounts to almost £4000 of the balance! They can't remember actually signing up for the PPI service, so I'm not really sure what grounds they have for claiming it back, but would appreciate some help. Is the first step to get the CCA request in, and find out what they agreed to to sign up to? In comparison, the late payment/overpayments are chickenfeed compared to the PPI payments on this account, so definitely worth chasing.

I live with a family who don't like threatening letters either, which is why I nipped it in the bud quickly by sending them (legally) threatening letters back

you're opening yourself up to be shot at by CAGers with that post - the advice on here is to ignore it, ignore it, ignore it, and eventually they go away, because it IS illegal, for various reasons. the alternative, if you're up for a laugh, is to go on the attack and tell them you'll defend it in court and be quite forceful in your requirements so that you can mount a legal challenge - assuming you've not already admitted you're the driver. They usually stop bothering after that as they know they can't pursue it any further without breaking even more laws.

I've emailed the same chairman recently about an unrelated matter, and the same thing happened, was passed onto customer services pretty quickly. In my case they're trying to pass the buck, but I'll be following up in the next couple of weeks once I've got confirmation it's their fault.

Just found a post that recommended visiting the FOS site, and having now done that I see my best course of action is to phone them and give them details of the problem, and see what they suggest.

I'm just itching to start the ball rolling on mine, my mother in law's and my missus's claims. I've not put any in yet, so they would be fresh, I wonder if it's worth sending them in now in preparation so that by the time the new templates are out, I can get straight onto the LBA and court claim stuff

Hi, A cheque payment was made on a CC card account, to clear the balance, but the CC company claimed they never received the cheque, despite bank statements and images of the cheque at the point it was paid in. I contacted them and provided them with this evidence, and assumed they would be able to rectify what I believe is just an admin mistake in crediting the wrong person's account (despite the cheque scan clearly showing the correct account number on it) However, they've now responded to say they can't trace the payment, and that I should speak to my own bank to trace it. I thought this was ridiculous, but visited my bank for a 2nd time today, and after initially coming to the same conclusion as me, they put a tracer on it, and will report back in 21 days. Given that it's the CC company's mistake, I am intending to claim back an additional payment that was made in haste before realising that the account balance should have already been cleared, plus interest, plus costs (£9.25 per hour for bank visits, drafting letters, and so on), and will expect them to strike off any notes they may have added to my credit reference agencies, in relation to late or ignored payments since this date, for I have no intention of paying them given that in my opinion, the balance should already be clear. On top of this, the bank manager suggested I would be within my rights to claim compensation for the stress and hassle this has caused. So my question is, how do I work out what is a fair amount in compensation?

they don't have an email address, at least none that I've ever found, so I got around it by emailing their CEO directly ([email protected]), who kindly and quietly (e.g. no direct response from him) forwarded it onto the customer services team. I pointed out that I was only doing this because I did not believe their telephone service had adequately dealt with my issue in a previous conversation, and wishes to ensure my complaint was dealt with promptly during the postal strikes.

I guess the reason I asked this was that when I wrote to a credit card company about refunding my charges, I used the template from the Martin Lewis (MoneySavingExpert) website as my basis, which mentions the OFT 2006 statement on CC charges. When I did this, the CC company responded with a standard template saying quoting OFT guidelines and saying that I wouldn't be entitled to a refund, to which I responded with an LBA, quoting the relevant paragraphs that confirmed I could still challenge the unfair charges in court. At which point they caved and paid up. Because of this, in my future responses to other CC companies I intended to modify my original letter to make it clear that I recognised the OFT guidelines and understood that I could still challenge them, and that this was therefore an LBA. I hoped this would reduce the amount of cat and mouse games they would play with me, and get straight to the point of offering a goodwill payment (which I would probably accept). However, while the statement applied to CC charges and not bank charges, I would assume yesterday's decision would give CC companies some wiggle room in their responses to say that the judgement yesterday indicates that the OFT statement on CC charges is now also irrelevant, so mentioning OFT guidelines when claiming CC charges is probably not worth it now? I know the CAG templates take a different approach to asking for CC charges to be refunded: "I now understand that the regime of fees which you have been applying to my account in relation to late fees and over limit charges, are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations. I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law. I am frankly shocked that you have operated my account in this way as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as my fiduciary." So perhaps I should ditch the MSE template mentioning OFT guidelines, despite it's previous success, and re-write my future letters based on the CAG template instead?

I've dealt with UKPC earlier this year. I sent a total of 3 emails, once to outline my rather aggressive position, once to escalate my threats in respond to their rejection of my (non-existant) appeal, and finally to say that the deadline for responding to my requests had passed, and that they should write to confirm their intentions otherwise it would be considered passive harassment. Unfortunately I never got my written confirmation letter, and I've not heard anything since, so technically I should now follow up on my threats and threaten legal action, bailiffs, and and so on, until they provide me with written confirmation, but for now I'm happy to forget about it.

Does this ruling have any impact on credit card charges?

Prior to this, we could still claim credit card charges while the court case was ongoing...Does this ruling have any bearing on citing OFT guidelines in claiming credit card charges?