Thanks Andy, will do.

Thank you again Stevie. I had a call from British Gas this afternoon. I have arranged to have the meter removed. The lady I spoke to was very polite and helpful. She said she would arrange with her manager to have all outstanding charges written off. She actually said, "This situation has gone on for far too long"! I asked for everything to be put in writing so we'll see. Thank you again to everyone.

Thank you all very much and thank you Stevie for some very useful information. I have emailed British Gas. It's not the fact that they are making these charges so much as the aggressive way they have been trying to squeeze me to pay them. I have very limited income and simply cannot afford the £100. I have said in the email that if it is their decision to apply these charges in the first place as not every energy supplier does, then it follows that it is also their decision to waive the charges in certain situations, such as hardship. I have really had enough and I said as much and I have told them that if they insist on pursuing this, I shall make it my business to give them as much bad publicity as I can. I have also suggested that they go after the people who deserve it and not pick on vulnerable customers. I shall be interested to hear what they have to say. I shall keep you posted and thanks again for all the help.

Yes it's a standard meter and like I said, I only kept the supply just in case of any electricity problems or loss. I wasn't aware that there were companies that didn't make standing charges. British Gas have always cracked on that they are obliged to make these charges by law, so clearly that is not the case. Thank you for that information, I can now use that fact as leverage against them.

Hi, yes they have read the meter and agreed that I have not used any gas, as there is no estimated use on any bill they produce. The sticking point is these wretched charges they insist on adding and I wanted to know what, if anything, I can do about them. Thanks.

Hello. I am involved in a long running dispute with British Gas over standing charges. I wanted to see if anyone can clarify the position on what can be done by them to enforce payment. The situation we have is that we have only one gas appliance, a gas fire, that it never used as it is boxed in by stuff, in a very cluttered front room. I cannot remember the last time it was used. British Gas insist that they are obliged to levy standing charges even when we never use gas. They have also seen fit to send a debt collection company to visit me. I should mention that I am a vulnerable customer insofar as I suffered a stroke 3 years ago and my ability to earn has been affected by this. I have explained all this to British Gas several times and they won't budge. The current bill for these charges is around £100. Is there anything I can do to get these people off my back? I have retained the supply as a standby for years but I think it's time to have the supply disconnected once and for all and put an end to all this grief. Any advice would be very welcome. Thanks.

Thank you all very much. Am I right in thinking that the CCA1974 allows a "cooling off period" when it is possible to withdraw from the agreement without penalty? After I have found out more about these characters, the less I want to have anything to do with them. I will look for alternatives instead.

Thanks Andy!

Hello This week I switched my home insurance to Home Protect, arranging to pay it monthly. Today, I heard from a company called Premium Credit, telling me that Home Protect had set up the credit arrangement for the insurance through them. I was then asked to register on their website and also to electronically sign a copy of the CCA1974 agreement. It also stated that if I hadn't signed by 27th April, then they would add £10 to my account! So my question is, can they actually legally do this? I thought the terms of the CCA1974 states you should sign ONLY if you wished to be bound by it. Effectively, they are fining me if I don't. Clearly, they just want to be able to guarantee any potential court action they might take would be successful by having a "signed" CCA1974 form but this just sound wrong to me. Any advice would be much appreciated. I see this particular company has been posted about before for exorbitant charges for failed direct debits which doesn't surprise me!

I have this week received a letter from the other firm of solicitors involved in this case (Mortimers) to tell me that their claim has been discontinued. So hurrah for that. Once again, I must express my great thanks to everyone here who helped me with this. Long may CAG continue! ODW

Finally, after all this time, I have had a letter from Restons Solicitors telling me that " the claim has now become stayed in view of the Consumer Credit Act request made by yourself. We shall endeavour to contact you in due course(!)". So I guess this is finally at an end and is worthy of being added to the list of successful challenges. I am totally grateful to everyone here who helped me with this and indeed encouraged me to fight it when I was ready to cave in to it. Thank you all! ODW

Thanks guys, I guess I have nothing to lose.

I did this on advice from the Brigadier. If Defendants cannot complain, why does the form give provision for naming a solicitor acting for someone else?

Here is the text of the report I have drafted for the SRA which I shall email to them. I would welcome any comment you may have, or indeed from anyone else, thanks. I have also attached a copy of the original letter. "My complaint concerns the actions of the above firm of Solicitors in respect of a Claim made by them on behalf of the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd., dated 5th August,2014. A copy of this Claim is included with this document: On receipt of this Claim, I prepared a Defence, which was duly entered on 5th September, 2014, the text of which follows: "The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is accepted. I have in the past held accounts with Simply Be however I am unaware of any outstanding balances as alleged and it is therefore denied until such time the claimant can clarify and comply with my request under section 78 of CCA1974. 2. Paragraph 2 is denied and the Claimant is put to the strictest of proof on the same. The Defendant contends that no notice pursuant to s.136 & 196 has been served upon him by the Claimant as alleged or at all. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/contract with the Claimant; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. 3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 4. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 5. On the 13th August 2014 I made a legal request by way of a section 78 request to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to comply and therefore is in default of this request and as such unable to request any relief until compliance. 6. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief." Prior to that, on 13th August, 2014, I wrote to the Claimant requesting a true copy of the Agreement, pursuent to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, S.77/78. The Claimant replied on 19th August, 2014, stating that they did not have this document but would request this from the original creditor, Simply Be. A further letter was received from the Claimant on 24th September, 2014, stating that they were unable to provide the information that I requested. The letter also stated the following: "Your credit agreement is currently unenforceable, which means we are not permitted to obtain a judgement or decree against you in Court." On 18th October, 2014, I received a letter from the Solicitors who are the subject of my complaint, dated 14th October, 2014. commenting on my Defence in this case. I have enclosed a copy of this letter, which was unfortunately damaged in transit by Royal Mail, but the text of the letter in intact. The letter has taken the elements of my Defence and made various comments, some of which appear to be invalid, specifically: Paragraph 3 - This should relate to my request for proof that the Claimant was entitled to make the Claim and that this proof shows that the Claimant has a valid Notice Of Assignment from the original creditor,Simply Be. The letter from Restons refers to the Claimant hiring the services of Marlin Financial Services to pursue the alleged debt. This has nothing to do with the alleged original debt assignment made between Simply Be and the Claimant. This paragraph is therfore invalid. Paragraph 4 makes no sense as along with any Assignment, there are also obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to provide proof of any agreement. The Claimant had already written to me as mentioned above that no such agreement had been obtained by them. Paragraph 6 then again tries to counter my Defence on the question of Notice of Assignment including the sentence "...so we see no reason why you would not believe that the Claimant is the legal creditor and owner of thr account and hence the correct party to bring these proceedings against you". Again, this "legal creditor" was unable to furnish proof of any agreement so I had every right to disbelieve. The following paragraph claims that in their view, my defence had *no prospect of success" and that they recommend my Defence be struck out. It goes on to "invite" me to withdraw my Defence, based on the contents of their letter. Given the poorly constructed and ill-considered content of this letter, I see it as being no more than an attempt to intimidate me into withdrawing my Defence, which I have no intention of doing. As such, I contend that, at best, this represents unprofessional practice on the part of Restons Solicitors. I think that many people would indeed feel threatened by such a letter and would go along with the "invitation". Again based on this letter's contents, I can see no relevant grounds on which to have my Defence struck out, so I consider this an empty threat and not something a professional solicitor would issue. That aside, the letter was written outside of the 28 day period which the Client had in which to respond to my Defence. It appears from my research that this solicitor uses this content of letter approach regularly with Defendants in such cases in the hope of obtaining default Judgements when Defendents ARE intimidated. I will leave this matter with you in the hope that you may be able to do something about this dubious behaviour by Restons"

Quite so. The SRA provide a document you can complete and even email it to them. It's hard to know exactly what to say, but I think I would explain the case, include all relevant documentation, and then leave it to them to decide if this outfit has acted improperly or even illegally.

Looking through other threads, I see that this particular outfit (Restons) make a living from this sort of thing, and will doubtless continue trying to trick people. You'd think they had more important things to do with their time.

I am indeed eternally grateful to you and to CAG! Over the years, you have come to my aid during some dark times and I shall never forget that.

Thanks Andy, yes I understand. One more question; are they acting illegally by even writing this letter in the first place? It seems highly questionable to me.

Thanks Andy, I'm sorry I am letting this get to me, it makes me very angry that they would do this, but you're right!

It's very tempting to reply, as this is a pretty despicable way to behave. I don't see what they should get away with this kind of threat, which it is after all, when they have no legal grounds on which to carry out their threat. They are saying the agreement was with Cabot, not Simply Be, but surely the same proof is required, whoever actually owns the debt?

Thanks guys, do you think I should dignify this letter with a reply?

Oh dear, I thought this one was dead but apparently it won't lie down. I have today received a letter dated 14th October, 2014, from one of the solicitors who were involved in this case, specifically the solicitors who dealt with Simply Be. The letter itself was mangled and torn by the Post Office but it is just about readable. The letter contains a lot of "legalese" basically telling me that my defence is not good enough. This in spite of the fact that Cabot themselves have admitted in writing that they cannot enforce this debt because they do not have the required proof. The letter ends: "In our view, your Defence has no prospect of success. In the circumstances, we will recommend to our Client that an application be made to strike out the Defence and for Judgement to be entered against you for the full amount claimed, together with all legal costs incurred as a result of that application. Should you wish to avoid this action, then we invite you to withdraw your Defence by completing the enclosed Form N9A and returning it to this office within the next 14 days." "Alternatively, you may wish to resolve this matter amicably without further Court intervention. If this is of interest to you, please forward your settlement proposals within the next 14 days." Now, first question obviously is: it this sheer intimidation or do they have legal grounds to do this? Also, it is over 28 days during which they could have responded to my Defence, it's about 6 weeks actually, so does this invalidate any attempt to counter my Defence? I have no intention of withdrawing my Defence but I feel I am on shaky ground here, if they can do what they are saying. Any advice here would be gratefully received! Thank you.

Yes indeed I will!

I see, thanks Andy. Given that they admit to not being able to enforce the claim, I suppose there is nothing further they can do. I appreciate all the help you gave me, many thanks indeed.

Thanks Andy, what is a DQ?