Just an update, was woken today by a text from C.A.R.S please contact blahh,blahh blahh ffs lol, I have an account with vanquis account in dispute, since 12/12/10 all letters sent, been passed too, 1 credit, red, lowell, moorcroft, now cars, have asked for my agreement a year ago, no reply have sar'd them no reply, sent out more letters to follow up, no reply, Vanquis cancelled my (ppi) in september and have been adding more n more charges, have some reclaimed some of them but everytime i send in my documents to inforce the ppi they dca me, I am now getting so low its making me ill, I am recovering from 3 brain surguries in mid '10 have sorted out all my debts with help from here, (thx for that) all I have now is this one left and they refuse to deal with it period tried a full and final refused, offered £1 refused asked to talk to complaints refused, requests for docs refused, guess what dca's want me to conatct them guess what lol refused, please can any one assist the balance was £250-00 late charges ect took it to ove £400 and climibing PS I never asked for the ppi they call it ROP when I took out the card thx for looking

Lee what can you do?

yes all calls recorded and they were notified at the start of the call

Further update Vanquis have now sent this file to Impact for a 2nd time just got off the pphone with them informed them the account is in dispute yet again got told shut up pay up, I replied take me to court please, so now what?

Love this new document has anyone actually looked in depth at this? the ramifications for the likes of Lowell/Red are so going to cost them see section 3.7 c about time the was clarification on the debt recovery industry, gives more power to the debtor and not the DCA's

it wont lol the debt is fine but the charges are not its a small debt nothing to worry about but the fact is they add charges and call in the mugget patrol to inforce when in dispute

not sent any info so they have not complied, also Moor croft are only acting as agents, the error is Vanquis sending this debt to a dca knowing it to be indispute too

Regarding item 4 of this post if you do fone the dca involed and they have purchased the debt then the debt is paid, but then if they say we have to speak to our client then this is them misleading/lying and very very naught yes? They HAVE bought the debt the debt IS paid and they have certain rights to collect on their purchase but if the law says the debt is paid its paid, but if the law says you owe a balance then the balance due is what they paid for it nothing more nothing less, how can someone buy something then expect someone to repay their kindness? I will never repay someone that has has bought something they didnt have too!! If they want to be daft and risk their arm in such a way I always say thankyou for settling my debt and ask for a receipt, if they dont give me a receipt then how can they claim for a refund of their purchase?? I'm confused lol

ROP = repayment option plan something i have paid for but didnt ask for lol, BUT have used it for 2 years they just slap on more n more late charges was over £450-00 in fees got all back except £133-00 so far have made an official complaint have done the following as of this SUNDAY CCA REQ/ SAR so will wait for their response b4 getting FOS involved also this has been dragging on since 06/2010 as well ffs lol pmsl :razz:didnt mean to cause further confusion lol I do have a great understanding of the law including credit criminal civil laws as daughter is just finishing her Law degree lol sorry guys

As a divorce is final the wife must not continue to increase a debt under any circumstances, you need to get your name removed from that account asap and if they dont, then put on restrictions to have the ability to increase debt without both signatures I had the same problem back in '92 I won the case at court but cant remember how

its now upto 2 years look for my post regarding Vanquis Moorcroft http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?371916-Vanquis-and-Moorcr*p(18-Viewing)-nbsp

ps when was your last payment/acknowledgement if not since 2007 then its close to being stat barred

Since a mobile contract is a service agreement different rules apply, send them the prove it letter 1st, see what they say, then let us know again, the letter is in the library

Had a go at moorcrap they fled sent account back to Vanquis it was too much for them now I will escalte the to FOC as Vanquis cancelled the ROP for no reason lol managed to get Vanquis to refund alot of charges but they are digging in their heal for a measly £133-50 thats my last debt, so what next I need to help some others to fight back so will stay around advising as many as I can woo go Daddy lol... Current scores as follows DCa's 0 Daddy 18 woo thanks for the advise here guys has keep me busy and it has helped me forget I am suffering from a serious brain injury haahaa

Hi welcome please up as much info as you can so we can help you

Had been offered a reduced settlement from another dca now Moorcroft have sent the file back to Vanquis now what ?

Ps Freddrickson and Carter are the same people Carter is his goffa

send him the prove it letter from the templates library, if you need to copy your receipt and send that to him as well, make sure no signature is on it lol, then send him the cca letter then see what he says if you defend your claim he runs and hides under a stone and if you have more details that wll help too

Recorded Delivery Date: Dear Sir or Madam, Account Ref xxxx Please be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing. I have noted your repeated attempts to contact me by telephone over the past fewweeks/months and these have been duly logged by time and date. Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you. There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people tobe able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2QB 384 . per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance. Yours faithfully, Dictated Not Signed

Recorded Delivery Date: Dear Sir or Madam, Account Ref xxxx Please be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing. Ihave noted your repeated attempts to contact me by telephone over the past fewweeks/months and these have been duly logged by time and date. Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”,please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if youmake an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you. There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people tobe able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman andpeople asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2QB 384 . per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license underCommon Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, ifyou do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action willbe taken, including but not limited to, police attendance. Yours faithfully, Dictated Not Signed

if you have not made any payments or acknowledgement then surely its statute barred?

Can you please let us have more info so we can help you?

Hi was googling and came across this is it correct or just soso? Fraud [1] When any so-called "Debt Collection Agency" (which includes Solicitors and Bailiffs threatening to obtain Court Orders) place any demand on you they are perpetrating a fraud. In the case of Court Orders, their original application to the Court conjoined said Court in the fraud. Here are the reasons. They will write a demand to you, claiming to be "Agents" of the Originator (the "originator" being whomsoever made the demand in thefirst place e.g. Bank, Building Society, Local Authority, etc.). This is a lie. They are not "Agents" at all, but have purchased the so-called'debt' with their own 'money'. They do this by buying very cheaply, and then attempting to collect the full amount from you. This is how they expect to make a profit. Please Note: Those who work for these "Agencies" (in the lowerechelons) do not, necessarily, know anything about this, however they will have some kind of "Purchasing Department", who will know exactly what is going on. In Law, however, by purchasing the so-called debt, they have EXTINGUISHED THE DEBT. This means that the 'money' is no longer owed. By you in law. Anything you may (or may not) have actually 'owed' has been written off, by the Originator. And it was yourself and the Originator that may (or may not) have had any Contract to which you may have been obligated. Thus, for anyone to claim that you still 'owe' anything is abare-faced lie, and a FRAUD. It is DEFAMATION, plain and simple. Fundamentally what has happened is that 'someone' has paid off any debt you may (or may not) have owed, on your behalf. (It is perfectly acceptable for Human"B" to pay off Human "A"s debts ... this happens all the time, where, for example, parents may bail out their children, and vice versa. Friends can do this for each other all the time). But, once any so-called 'debt' has been paid, it has been paid.And that's all there is to it. But, when Debt Collection Agencies do this, they continue to pursue you for a debt that has been - in actual fact - extinguished by their very purchase. So they are actually pretty stupid ... going around paying off someone else's 'debts'. And they do this out of avarice (greed). And it is long past time that these greedy people got their 'come-uppance'. And that is happening. And the Genie is out of the Bottle. This point is this. By purchasing so-called 'debts' in this way, they had no interest in any original Contract. Thus, when they purchased, they did so of their own volition, out of pure avarice, without any legal, lawful, or moral obligation to do so. In short, THEY UPPED AND VOLUNTEERED. And we all know what happens when you volunteer for anything ... YOU TAKE ALL THE RISKS AND ANY COMEBACKS UPON YOURSELF. (That's what volunteering means). Because, by volunteering, you have agreed to take all the risks yourself, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to involve anyone also, and try to palm the risks off on someone else. Which is of course, precisely what they are doing when they try to palm it off on you, by claiming to be "Agents" and sending you demands. They are perpetrating a FRAUD. Any original 'debt' has been extinguished, and no longer exists, so any claim to the contrary is a lie. They claim to be Agents when they are, in point of fact, nothing more than 'volunteers'who decided (RATHER STUPIDLY) to take on all the risks UPON THEMSELVES. In "legal" terms, they try to get around all of this by considering the Volunteer to be a "Holder in Due Course". This is, of course, nothing more than a "Legal wrangle" to try to get over the basic FRAUD. This does not get around the basic fact that the so-called'debt' was extinguished when it was purchased. Neither does it get around the fact that the Agency is NOT acting as an "Agent" of the Originator (which is therefore a deception), but is acting totally on their own behalf. This is because, as far as possible, "Legal" will always turn a blindeye to "Reality & Law". The result of this is, therefore, nothing more nor less than "Totally Legalised Fraud" And, for that reason these sound arguments are very risky to use in a Court. Therefore it is better to fall back in the 'base' augment: Prove the original debt. PLEASE FEEL ENTIRELY FREE TO RUN THIS EXPLANATION PAST ANYONE IN THE “LEGAL” PROFESSION.

If the account is still in dispute its illagal to sell on I believe? yes/no?