Please give your support to the Farepak Victims http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18820 On the 13th October it will be 5 years since the collapse of Farepak. The Farepak Victims Committee call on the Government to: 1. Bring those responsible to account 2. Fully compensate Farepak Victims 3. Put in place financial regulations that ensure that this never happens again. You can also following FVC on Twitter and/or Facebook http://twitter.com/#!/LouiseMcDaid http://www.facebook.com/groups/285468791482270/301830659846083/?notif_t=group_activity A number of media people have supported it including Martin Lewis of MoneySavingsExpertForum

Have you seen this? http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/ It seems interesting..... a bail IN. You have to watch the video.....

So can it be recorded with CRA as anything else then? Incase I may have mis-understood the problem in terms of being recorded at CRA. Now as far as I beleive the person wants to take it to court as the bank are refusing to try and remove it, therefore do they have a case and how would they fight it? Going on what I've been told it's been recorded as a default.

A default was recorded on the loan at CRA of which a full and final settlement was agreed with the bank. They didn't realise this would happen, however, I do recognise they did default. Please keep in mind this is a bit of a remote situation to me so I don't know all the details but I am trying to learn about CRA's etc. I know more about Insolvency but this is of interest to me too. Basically, I'm learning, that is what I'm saying.

Someone having a cash flow problem as most of it is tied up in assets and comes to an agreement with the bank to repay loan at reduced payments. A reduced amount in total of the loan is repaid. The person didn't think their credit score would be affected in doing this but finds out differently. Out of interest is there anyway the situation can be resolved? I suspect not but thought I'd see if anyone else has a different opinion.

Hiya! I noticed when I received my recent clubcard vouchers they was some offer on that you could use your vouchers at Topps Tiles. I'm sure it was for more than the price of the voucher..... as they do sometimes. So if you do the points then it might be worth holding onto your Tesco vouchers. The offer is until June time. Another batch of vouchers are due out just before June.

Thank you for the warm welcome and will assist if I'm able to help. I've now managed to understand the issue I came on with now...... and it's all now down to some letter writing and Monday's postal system.

I think pop_gun means creditors.

I beleive you do have to make sure the company is solvent to petition the court otherwise your paying money for nothing. Pop_gun, also, just to clear up something I've noticed in a couple of your postings. A companies Debtors owe the company money, as they are in debt to the company . The companies creditors owe the company money (suppliers, loan, mortgage etc), hence a creditors winding up petiton etc. Basically, your debtors owe YOU money and you owe your creditors money.

Thankyou. I looked up Ofgem after I posted and then realised. Thanks for all your help and everyone else who contributed to the discussion of which I have enjoyed. Good to thrash it out and get to the nitty gritty. Will keep you all posted with hopefully a future update. and..... thanks again. Miss Vin.

Nottslad, when you say I have good grounds for a complaint, do you mean to Ofgem or are you talking about Scottish Gas? A complaint to Ofgem sounds like more fun to me. If so anything specific you think I should mention or add etc apart from putting in the complaint? Pointers etc, that you might see as being of greater prominence? Finally, will there be any money in this complaint for me? Ok, I'm being a chancer now but the thought sounds good!

Slight problem, I'm not sure if my.... contract.... is an express contract or an implied contract. Do you have anything that relates to implied contract? Express contracts means terms of the agreement are in writing. And it is a contractual term specifically stated to be part of the contract. Implied contract means the duties and obligation of both parties are not expressed but are implied by their acts or conducts. Both indicate by their conduct that they have a mutual agreement and need not express the agreement in words. I do get letters re express but on the other hand I would say it's an implied contract. Oh, so sorry, just reading it again, I seem to be getting myself confused now. It is an implied but that is ok re your last posting Nottslad.

As by definition the terms and conditions of a deemed contract have not been expressly agreed between suppliers and customers, Ofgem considers that it is appropriate for these terms and conditions to be subject to regulation Correct, and therefore that is industry regulation and NOT company regulation. It's basically the Utilities Act 2000 etc. Basically what I have been saying in latter posts. Oh, where did you get all that info..... so, so, so, goooooooooooooood! Thankyou, thankyou!!! I almost don't want the discussion to end..... You need to tell me the source, so I can print it off and go and smack Scottish Gas over the head with it!!!! lol! Miss Vin

Good for you miromike. You never know with all that extra dosh you might be able to bag yourself a girlfriend to treat now. Sorry your just a bit old for me though. :wink:

Ok fair enough. I totally agree that in Contract Law you don't have to sign a contract for terms and conditions to apply (like getting on a bus or a train etc.) but I have been of the feeling like the previous poster has stated that I haven't actually used their service and therefore I do think it's questionable as to the existance of the contract? I am not using the gas and therefore there is no contractual relationship there. Normally something... happens..... for a contract to exist and nothing on my side would technically form a contract. They might have rights to access meter and legally have to send me a bill but the fact that I'm not doing anything that would form a contract is questionable. I'm not subject to a standing charge so the standing charge arguement doesn't apply to me. I do appreciate you know the regularity regulations but I do think that you might not be accounting for the ins and outs of contract law. However, we will just say we agree there is a deemed contract but this still doesn't mean their terms and conditons automatically apply to me, as like has been said, my activities as "customer" no contractual relationship has been formed re usage of supply which is shut off. On that note what would happen if someone didn't pay there bill and they took the customer to court to gain means to access the meter, as threatened in final demand. Now what would happen then if customer wasn't paying? Would they not just shut the supply off? Or would they just keep billing a customer who is not paying bills? That would be interesting to know Nottslad. I am slightly concerned that your going by the regulations but failing to account for other area's of law that can throw up questions, however, I am very appreciative for your help too.