Jump to content

Fester Tester

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fester Tester

  1. What a ridiculous thing to say. Might I suggest you check your FACTS before posting?
  2. In which case, simply write to Welcome, tell them you will NOT communicate in any way other than letter. So, being in severe diffs with other creditors is a worry. But first thing is to keep a roof over your head. So You need to be speaking with whoever has the mortgage on your house as a priority, and if at all possible, keep those repayments up. Welcome, since they only have a second charge on the property, are on dodgy ground. Even if they took you to court, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to force a sale for only £13K. The problem with coming to any sort of arrangement with them is, they will continue to pile ridiculous amounts of interest on, so you will likely never be free. If you can keep your mortgage company happy, the best bet then would be an IVA. Bankruptcy is seen by the industry as an easy way out for debtors, but it is far from that, so you want to avoid if at all possible. If you go the IVA route, try not to put yourself in the hands of a company who charge for their services. Speak to the CAB and see who they suggest. What town are you in? It might be worthwhile seeing if Christians Against Poverty can help, as they are a charity and don't take a fee. And no, you don't need to be a Christian to let them help you. But as the centres are all based in local churches, not all towns are covered.
  3. Did you have PPI included in your loan? Anything there you can do to reduce you liabilities has got to be worth a try. I'm not so sure repo is a realistic option if all you owe is £13K. And I fail to see how, if that's what you owe, repossession will leave you with a £30K shortfall in any case. Or are you behind on your first charge mortgage too? It's still not clear enough what's going on here.
  4. Has repossession started yet? Or Are you simply being pessimistic? It's not at all clear what stage things are at from what you are saying. Neither is it clear if repossession is a likely scenario. How much is the debt for? Have they actually defaulted you in law? Is it all threats because you have stopped paying? Have you challenged their right to enforce the debt? etc, etc, etc... More info needed before anyone can offer any sort of constructive advice.
  5. Just write back, and tell them that the matter is under investigation by the FOS, and they should not contact you again, otherwise you will include their threatening lettter in that complaint. It's nothing but a ploy to frighten you.
  6. if Andy is calling from WF, he's hardly likely to have bought the debt, is he? Not entirely sure what you are on about. Have repossession proceedings commenced? I assume not, otherwise why would they be hounding you still by phone? As to what to do about it: you could always just try putting the phone down. Or barring the number via BT.
  7. Quite what use that template will be to Tam, I have no idea. Since it deals with unlawful charges. Tam, Welcome will never agree that they are liable to refund beyond 6 years. You'd be better off writing to them and telling them that since you now have their final notice to your complaint, you will be taking up the issue with the FOS. Who will take a humongous length of time to get their finger out. Short of taking Wecome to court, that's your only option. Playing ping pong with letters is going to get you nowhere.
  8. Feckitall. I'm outa here. But at least it's my choice this time. If Bookie and everybody else supporting the ad campaign can't see that the businesses advertising go against the whole ethos of what CAG USED to be about, there's no way anybody is going to change their minds. If you can accept that some people are going to be hurt by taking folks up on their kind offers, then you are either without conscience, or imagination. Before I go, I'll just remind everyone why I have such a downer on Bookie. Here's a venomous wee post from her earlier on, totally unprovoked. And as I have no reason to believe it was written whilst under the influence of alcohol, is in my very humble, and quite probably Festering, opinion simply inexcusable. I can't even see the point of the post apart from being a deliberate attempt to annoy. In which she succeeded admirably. A bit of a childish," My gang is better than your gang" pettiness? Or something rather more sinister. I do wonder what her hidden agenda was there.
  9. I hope this helps Bookie. Big enough picture for you? Still think there's no reason to get annoyed?
  10. Strange then, that I was banned in the past, for breaking the oh-so-important rule of not being allowed to advertise. Except it was on my PERSONAL blog, FFS. Not even ads pointing to Payday loans or ripoff merchants offering credit without checks. But that's OK. So long as nobody thinks there might be double standards at work here. Oh, no. Wait...
  11. Ah, I see. Simpler to get rid of folks who question the fact that Lowells, and any other grime-ridden vermin that feel they would like to "help" their customers in CAG, than to ban the Lowells rep. Yes, that makes perfect sense. To somebody at least. Certainly not to me. Just as I cannot understand why entire threads questioning the subject have been pulled. You may SAY that posts have not been moderated, but you, and many others, know full well that this has not always been so. It seems that the "right to say what they want" does NOT extend to certain genuine posters. So why should it be any different for "James"? It's a reasonable question. But I doubt I'll get a reasonable answer. Heck, I'll more than likely just get flamed again, since there IS no reasonable answer. Far easier just to sidestep questions, than to confront them, eh Bookie? Have you seen the ads yet, Bookie? You seemed happy to tell folks they were talking nonsense in MSE when the subject was brought up, but I accept that at the time you were denied all the information that you required to be able to have an informed opinion. I trust that has now been rectified. Nothing worse than having an opinion based on ignorance after all, although as has oft been said; Ignorance is no excuse.
  12. So, Bookworm. Lowells were given short shrift, were they? Doesn't seem like it to me from reading this thread, ye specky eyed bint. Perhaps if ye went to Specsavers, you'd be able to see the above Lowells poster, and mebbes actually see the ads that everybody but you has noticed into the bargain. Of course, mebbes all ye need to do is remove yer blinkers.
  13. Oh, THIS is interesting. In actual fact, it is CF(UK)Ltd who purchase and own the debt. CF(Europe)Ltd service the account. i.e. Try like buggery to collect on it. They do NOT own it. So if your NoA says they do, the NoA is bolleaux. Make them prove in court that they bought it. They won't be able to, since UK buy the accounts. Always. So NoA is nonsense. Doesn't mean they won't issue a corrected NoA. Maybe. I'm confused though, cos their templating system is set up to send the same guff out to everybody, with the only variable being data pertinent to the recipient; Name, address, account details etc.
  14. So it would appear that Concept Cars are still about, so maybe it's time to have a bash at them. I'd be going in and banging desks.
  15. As if!!! LOL It's just a way around the profanobot.
  16. Well, that seems to be a first. They appear to prefer first contact to be by telephone. Idiots. I suspect, but I do not know for sure, that Welcome are selling on accounts where they know they would have trouble enforcing the debt. Only time will tell. As yet, I haven't heard of anyone managing to get anything like a CCA from them, enforcable or not. Early days. But as they learn what this debt purchse lark is all about, at least we'll get to see at first hand whether or not Welcome have stitched them up good and proper. Since they don't appear, from what you say, to have come up with a satisfactory response to your perfectly reasonable request for a copy of your agreement, you are not obliged to continue paying them a penny. I would NOT advise you to stop paying them. But I certainly cannot fault you for it.
  17. HAHA. You'll NEVER get an actual copy of an NoA from Cabot. As Trooper says, they run off a letter from their Big Book of Templates, with nothing to indicate that you were ever a recipient of such a document other than a scribbled note at the top saying "Representation of the sort of Shoite we would have sent you." Or words to that effect. In pencil. Probably because they can't be trusted with crayons.
  18. OK, perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick. Here's what you said earlier... So are you saying that the dates there are NOT the dates they have given as being in default? If all they have done is taken over the reporting of your data ON those dates, rather than those dates being the date of default, you're fine. The fact that the debt was assigned to them allows them to do that (assuming they have any right to be processing your data at all), as long as the original date of default does not change. If so, then you can quite happily sit back until Cabot either produce a response to your CCA, or write to say the OC can't find one. Does that make sense? I think I must have been confused by your earlier post, but what you say now seems to make better sense.
  19. The fact that the OC marks a credit file as settled is usual, because once it is sold on, it then becomes the responsibility of the assignee to continue the reporting. I have a feeling that once Cabot are made aware that the date they have recorded is incorrect, they will change it to 2005. I think just a very simple letter, making sure they realise it is a complaint, would be best. Simply pointing out that the default date reported by the OC has not changed, and you require them to amend the date to reflect this, since the DPA requires all information to be accurate. And that whilst you do not accept that they have any right to be processing your data whatsoever since you are in dispute, you are prepared at this stage to allow the default to continue. To be perfectly honest, unless you are prepared to take Cabot to court over the default, the best you can hope for is to get the date right. They will never budge until told to do so by a judge. And the ICO tends to back creditors usually, where there is no agreement, but the debtor has obviously enjoyed the use of credit. Copy the CRA concerned on that letter. It can take up to 28 days for the CRA to amend things. I'd give them that long, and if no change, report BOTH of them to the ICO without further warning. Unless of course they tell you they won't do it, so you ca nthen complain straight away. Not long until it's statute barred, eh?
  20. OK, I have been subbing to another thread, different from yours, but which appears to have thrown up an interesting argument. I have no idea whether it applies in your case, but I'd say it is certainly worth exploring. Hopefully somebody more knowledgable than me might be able to offer some input??? Here's the interesting bit..
  21. Cabot have absolutely no right to change the date of default, unless that was the most recent default date due to you ceasing any payments you had been making to them. They can only CONTINUE reporting the original default, and so the date must reflect the date that NEXT defaulted you. And since you have had no contact with Cabot up to this point, and going by your thread so far you have NEVER made any payment to them, they are acting unlawfully. Cabot are fully aware that any data reported to the CRA's must be accurate. Now, if Next never defaulted you, and have only recorded the default date in order for their to be a record, then they should have sent you a default notice. I suspect they have not done so. And in any event, after all this time, they would not be entitled so to do in any case as quite clearly, 5 years is an unreasonable period. I would say you have reason enough to complain immediately to the ICO. Also write to Cabot explaining that they have no right to be processing erroneous data, and that they must remove the default immediately. You'll need to CCA them too, and they will be unable to produce an agreement since you never signed one. Quite possibly an idea to SAR them at some stage, but probably there will be minimal info to be had as yet. If you need help with any of that, just shout. Cheeky barstewards.
  22. WTF are you talking about? Judge wants to see you now? Yeah, OK. In your dreams. No point asking for help AFTER you've taken this road. The time to find out what the feck you should be doing is BEFORE you do anything stupid. I'm dying to see how many people help you out on this. I suspect the answer will be NONE. But I'll keep subbing cos I'm a nosy git.
  23. It would appear so far that there are a couple of issues here. Firstly, as BO has already intimated somewhere but I can't find offhand, there may be charges applied by the OC, to which they were not entitled. Secondly, Cabot have absolutely no right whatsoever to be adding their own 12% interest rate. And if I understand correctly, they are seeking to have a statutory 8% added on top of that. I do think that, whilst there does not seem to be an actual defence against the fact that BO is liable to repay A debt, I certainly don't think that Cabot are entitled to the amount that they have claimed. So in a sense, that is defense enough. Except I don't think it would end there. So I think the best plan is to look carefully at the figures, and try to calculate what might be a more reasonable liability. Have you got statements from Cabot, BO? Morally of course, since the bloody computer never worked properly in the first place, this is all bolleaux and the OC should have sorted all this out ages ago. But we're talking pre-CAG and similar forum days, and so we need to accept that the consumer savviness (is that a word?) was pretty much non existent back then.
  24. Likewise. I think I'm going to have to be very patient though.
  • Create New...