Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Zodiac


Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About combathamster

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This is a long running dispute originally over ridiculous fees added, but Moorcroft have been less than honest Timeline for Contact From Moorcroft 27/01/09 States I must pay in full or face legal action. States £262.45 has been added to the account for 'client's admin. Costs'. If I pay in full now these may be reduced. ( Against OFT guidelines ) To Moorcroft 29/01/09 Sent £50. Offer to pay off in 4-5 weeks ( on reflection a bit hopeful ). I challenge their fees of over £250. From Moorcroft 05/02/09 Acknowledge £50. Notes next payment is due 00/00/00 ( odd? ). From Moorcroft 11/02/09 Acknowledges £125. Threat of legal action. From Moorcroft 02/03/09 State I have defaulted on my agreement to pay £250 a month. Threat of legal action. From Moorcroft 04/03/09 Want £50 by 10/03/09 and £200 pcm thereafter. Threat of legal action To Moorcroft 14/04/09 Again challenge fees asking for breakdown. Want written response. Note no response to my questions thus far. To Moorcroft 27/04/09 Challenge fees. From Moorcroft 23/04/09 Requesting repayment proposal From Moorcroft 07/05/09 Saying I had defaulted and my account was being passed to the 'Home Collections Division' for action and someone will call at my property ( against OFT guidelines ). Threat of legal action. From Moorcroft 19/05/09 Statement of account. From Moorcroft 21/05/09 State I have defaulted and account passed to 'Home Collection Division'. To Moorcroft 21/06/09 Reference to Moorcroft not answering my complaint about fees on 3 occasions. State I will issue them with an SAR request if necessary for a fees breakdown. From Moorcroft 01/07/09 Statement that an administrative charge of £262.45 has been added to the account. No breakdown or explanation. To B.T. 12/07/09 Complaining about 'admin' fee....state am going to issue SAR. To B.T. 27/07/09 Complaint about fees. To B.T. 29/07/09 Refer to fees. Point out that B.T. Have had a block on my landline since November 2008 and this is taking unfair advantage of their position. To Moorcroft 18/07/09 Subject Access Request sent with £10 fee. From Moorcroft 19/07/09 'Appointment Notice'. Apparently their local representative had called repeatedly at my address to no avail. ( This is a blatant untruth, any people not known here are immediately challenged by my neighbours and we keep each other informed ). Say they will accept payments of £45 a month. From B.T. 10/08/09 Saying account is no longer with them and I must contact Moorcroft. To B.T. 12/08/09 Asking if B.T. Sold debt to Moorcroft, or if they are acting as their agents. To B.T. 13/08/09 As above, refer to Moorcroft's non-compliance with SAR request. To B.T. 31/08/09 Complaining about admin. Fees. From Moorcroft 05/09/09 State no longer dealing with B.T. Account, has been returned to B.T. From B.T 15/09/09 State commission of 25% of bill to Moorcroft is legal and account is with Moorcroft. To B.T. 23/09/09 Claim admin charge is nothing more than a thin disguise for Moorcroft's commission. To Moorcroft 31/08/09 Notification Moorcroft have failed to comply with SAR request. From I.C.O 01/10/09 Acknowledgement of complaint made against Moorcroft following non- compliance with SAR. From Moorcroft 09/10/09 Says SAR payment received 24/07/09. Not processed as I didn't send I.D. ( not a requirement ). State account closed and letter sent to me returning payment ( not received ). States all monies ( £390 ) sent to B.T. From ICO 04/12/09 Response to my complaint against Moorcroft. States that Moorcroft had 2 accounts with me, and one closed, ( in July 2009? ) so they had overlooked it and it was a mistake. Moorcroft state they are no longer dealing with the account and I should deal directly with the client ( B.T. ) BUT! From Moorcroft 11/01/10 Response to subject access request, I have been sent the account details of a Mr. A ( same surname ) who lives in Royston, he must be very pleased his personal details are safe, if he exists. Further complaint to ICO. To B.T./Moorcroft 03/03/10 Summary. Pointing out that the £390 I have paid to Moorcroft has never been paid to B.T. Pointing out that I have not had a landline for over a year and B.T. Are using this as a lever. State debt is £659.82. Mrs. J. Morry from B.T. Stated that if Moorcroft had sent the account back only partially paid then would have been sent out to another collection agency immediately. Stated that there was no record of the account being sent back to B.T. By Moorcroft. Phone B.T. 03/03/10 Lady stated that there was no record of the monies I paid to Moorcroft ever having been paid to B.T.. I informed her the last correspondence was that the account had gone back to B.T. And I was surprised that they had not contacted me. Phone B.T. 13/03/10 Spoke to B.T. Man stated bill was over £1000 ( ? ), and with Moorcroft. This is at complete variance with the correspondence I have. To Moorcroft 15/03/10 Final notice before action. To B.T. 15/03/10 Final notice before action. Point out B.T. Have been sent copies of all correspondence from/to Moorcroft yet do not respond. From Moorcroft 17/03/03 Again state monies paid to B.T. ( account details included, but wrong account, 2nd incorrect response to SAR request ) To Moorcroft 19/03/10 Point out to Moorcroft payments were for B.T., marked as such, and receipted and credited by Moorcroft as such To B.T. 19/03/10 Sent copy of Moorcroft response ( 19/03/10 ) from me to B.T. Phone B.T. 27/03/10 Spoke to B.T. No monies have ever been paid by Moorcroft to B.T. From monies paid to Moorcroft by me. From Moorcroft 01/03/10 Demand from Moorcroft dated 15/04/10 with deadline 21/03/10 for full amount with fees added again. Court seems to be my only hope on this one
  2. If my agreement was in 2000, and bound by the 1974 act, before the amendments, what is the difference in what the lender must show the court compared to an agreement after the amenments, wording please?
  3. Thank you for your responses, as stated, I never signed anything with Goldfish or Barclaycard, but did with MSDW ( 2000 ). I was ill for a long time..was not me being evasive, I didn't sign anything. So it would be MSDW to take me to court? I also read on the dismantlying Manchester case thread that as my account was covered by the 1974 act..then section 61 ( enforcement ) was different in terms of what would have to be produced..is this the case and what are the detaails please?
  4. Morgan Stanley-Goldfish-Barclaycard-then Moorcroft.....people getting snotty are Barclayshark and Moorcroft ( grave robber ) not Lara Croft ( Tomb Raider ) lol
  5. it was an A3 photocopy on A4...I could read it with an magnifying glass and a squint.....what terms should I look for?
  6. unfortunately my scanner is up the pole, will put it up when fixed..I did make token payments until I thought they were being odd..last payment Jan '09 so not SB
  7. Yes it was an MSDW card...I did eventually last oct get a bad photocopy of an application form from MS in 2000..in the SAR request there were no records of the account before 2003
  8. Barclayshark started getting heavy last Feb, I CCA'd them and nothing after 2 attempts ( orig. ) agreement. I then did the SAR still no agreement, did try the CPR route...they said they didn't have to comply....have never signed anything with Goldfish or Barclaycard. Now Moorcroft have it..usual threatening letter straight away....than another one..notice of action with all the solicitors fees on.....one a little worrying..'by default'..are they assuming I won't turn up or can they go to court without telling me ( sorry if that sounds a bit dumb )
  9. Little update.....court are not pursuing my form 4 as they said their was no significant complaint....despite the huge paper trail and me showing they had lied in their asessment, ho hum, well is up to the LGO now, and possibly an N1 form..make a claim in the court...my MP was supportive but not now..
  10. This seems to clear up when a van fee can be charged, have a look How To Deal With The Bailiff - Birmingham City Council
  11. Thank you Pink....well if they have contracts I believe that they are resposible for the actions of their contractors
  12. Hello TT, well I have gone through all the right proceedures, and my initial complaint went in to the big cheese on the 11th March, the LGO have already given me a reference number. Likewise with the form 4 I gave Phoenix 6 months to explain themselves ( ie. 'van fees' ) which they didn't, and they have been evasive, haven't responded etc....so they is a good paper trail...do you know what legislation shows that the council have a responsibility for the actions of the bailiffs..I thought it was normal contract law...as bailiff services go out to tender? Hmmm
  13. I believe that as there is a contract between the council and the bailiffs.....the contracts go out to tender..then the council are ultimately responsible.
  • Create New...