Jump to content

teaboy2

Registered.
  • Content Count

    1,634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

teaboy2 last won the day on May 3 2011

teaboy2 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

349 Excellent

1 Follower

About teaboy2

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. The Harrison V Link is case law, though it didn't specifically mention section 40 of administration of justice act - though by going down such route you can use the Harrision V link judgement in your arguement, as for compensation will a breach of section 40 would allow you to claim under protection from harassment. Ghost their is no difference between criminal and/or civil harassment other than the satndard of proof. So i do believe you may be entitled to compensation under section 41 of AOJ but either way your certainly able to claim compensation under protection of harassment act. Anyw
  2. they called on the house phone not on my office phone so no recording, though i will look at forwarding calls to home phone to the company phone system as its online based so can be accessed in any location basically. I wasn't expecting the call but i put them in their place and followed it up with a letter before action with a section 10 notice under the DPA sent via email (reciept of which has been received confirming they have opened it). So if they report me for fraud when theirs no evidence of any fraud is simply an unenforceable and disputed debt, then i will sue for libel, harassment an
  3. Yes they would i believe, though i wouldn't put it past them to accidently intentionally leaving that info out. Just report them to the Information commissioners office they will investigate it. Has your wife complained to the court itself?
  4. Brigadier sorry if my post confuses you but i am simply posting it so people know what lenghs MMF will goto and so losingmymind knows what maybe ahead.
  5. Well well now MMF phone me at 8pm about the debt. Asking if i denie the debt, i said i not saying either way as the first date you gave me nothing had been paid in and on the 2nd date i do not know, because i do not have a statement for that date. (had to order the one for the 1st date so am not ordering another one). Anyway i told them its in dispute and unenforcable, they threatened to report it as fraud to the police, i said you can't, am not denying it or acknowledging it eitherway as i do not know if the money was paid, but what i do know is the agreement is unenforcable and there was no
  6. Yes - any false information provided to a 3rd party is libellous, and detrimental to the person. Although they maywell have ment to have sent it to the employer for the other person with the same name, they should have checked to make sure your other half was the person to whom the attachment of earnings was ment for. Are you certain they issued the CCJ on the other person and not your wife, have you check credit files to make sure? It maybe that they have not registered the CCJ on your file yet.
  7. Thanks for the link Ghost, but it would appear that it is all speculative and not confirmed, so its not clear as to whether debt collection practices used to collect debts come under commercial practices, or as to a clear meaning of the definitions of commercial practice. They refer to debt collection as after sales calls, when they are not after sales calls in my opinion but debt enforcement calls. So there is still alot of uncertainty about the definitions under the CPUTR - Though i will have a read through the entire documents at a later stage as i have only browsed through the parts releva
  8. I personally would make a complaint against the officer that gave you the warning on the grounds you were not responsible for the email nor do you have such an email account and as such the email needs to be investigated so the true offender can be found and dealt with appropriately. And also ask for a copy of the alleged email and details as to the senders IP address so you can present it in court since there is currently court proceedings ongoing and it is therefore relevant to the court case.
  9. Lol poor barnaby and ascent at MMF just do not get it do they. They chasing me for an alleged debt from early 2009 (prior to when i started my company) where the date they said i received it showed no such payment in my account and then the loan was one for 1 month but the agreement they sent was for 2 months with a second loan account created for the second month as result of extension in the 1st month, so basically the agreement is unenforceable as it is not the original executed agreement and half what they are after is in £12 charges for alleged failed debit payments which were processed w
  10. Report them to the OFT, ICO and trading standards, they are in breach of oft guidelines for requesting a signiture and/or forms of id. I would then send them a letter in response:- RE Account NO XXXXXXXX Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/2009 in which you say that you will not comply with my subject access request dated xxx under the `Data Protection Act 1998 unless I provide you with a signature or proof of ID. There is no requirement under the Act that require a subject access request to be accompanied by a signature, and I am unable to accede to your request - How
  11. they have 12 + 2 days in order to produce the agreement after that they are in default of your request and can not enforce the debt, By the sounds of it their is no such agreement hence why the first DCA past it back. What they said over the phone was grossly misleading as they are required by law when sent a request and the £1 fee to produce a true copy of the agreement or reconstituted or microfinche. Since its over 10 years old then even if such agreement did exist (most banks only keep documents for 6 years) then it would likely be unenforcable in court anyway. So once its past the 14 days
  12. well i did report the thread to the site team asking them to move all posts on the debate to a thread of their own, which will have brought VTR80's thread back to where it was prior to the debate, but looks like nothing has been done about it yet. Though am not going to respond futher on the debate until its in its own thread.
  13. I see where your coming from, but as a DCA is not directly connected to the promotion, sale or supply of a product to or from any debtors, i.e. not named in the contract as a party to it, then they have no legal right to operate it that regards to enforcing the terms contract under commercial practice as defined by the CPUTR which is stated below. Saying that they can is in my view the same as saying i can call other companies customers up demanding payment. “commercial practice” means any act, omission, course of conduct, representation or commercial communication (including advertisin
  14. Ohh so now its personal insults, i have been saying what you have said about phone calls all along, you have just back tracked from saying that section 40 does not apply (even though its a criminal offence) and now say that the same applies under CPUTR but offers greater punishments which i agree it does, but if you are in breach of section 40 then your in breach of the CPUTR also. You were implying they were entitled to call the debtor as many times they wanted to as under section 26 they are were allowed to, where above your saying the opposite to what you were implying before. Eithe
  15. well with respect to the OP he/she should tell his neighbour to, or the OP write to them him/herself, that if they call his nighbour again then they will be in breach of section 40 administration of justice as nothing under the CPUTR allows a company operating as a commercial practice to contact a 3rd party in attempt to enforce a debt owed by an other party, nor is it lawful to request personal details from a person not legally entitled to disclose such personal information.
×
×
  • Create New...