Well for £1 you can get a full statement of account, a credit agreement, all termsand conditions. Also until they comply they can't take enforcement action through the courts as they have threatened.

Id also be asking for the date of assignment, and copy of the default notice . I'd also check that they have actually registered a default like they claim. If so when was it and who by.

Hi, sorry if I've missed it in your previous posts but have you asked for a copy of the agreement?

Also that letter on the front page isn't a notice of assignment. It needs to come from the assignor or assignee and that letter comes a representative of the assignee. Also what was thedate of assignment, as they state they have registered a default who's to say it was done after the assignment. Also shouldn't they be telling you who the data controller is now allowing them to register a default.

Sorry on my phone so formatting is a bit naff. One more thing, is the default notice compliant?

My sister has had very similar experinces with UU over the last 4 years.

She moved into a new house 4 years ago and since then has been plagued with letters, phone calls for money. She is on icome support and was paying sometimes 30% of her income for water. She couldnt keep up with the demands for hundreds of pounds and in dec 2006 it was passed to in house concillia. A complaint was made at that time.

A payment plan was setup but UU still kept asking for hundreds and so did concilia. In oct 2008 (unbeknown to me) they took her to court and got a ccj. She has been paying the ccj and their demands for new bills.

Last week she received another demand for payment for over 700 in arrears !

She made a complaint and they replied stated...

They had been charging her for 2 accounts on the same house since 2005 and they should never have taken court action as she didnt owe them anything. Infact she had over paid by over 1000 and paid this years bill in full !

They said they will have the ccj set aside and will compensate her with £200.

I have written back quoting

dca's usually use terms 'may' might' etc. ie we may take you to court.

As it's littlewoods I wouldn't worry much as 'littlewoods' and 'enforceable agreement' does not compute in the same sentence.

they asked my questions about previous loans with different companies which i told them i did not have!

they then told me that i have not answered sufficant security questions.

they do this when you try to apply online. You can still get your report the normal way

What they have sent is the standard littlewoods letter basically stating they don't have a signed cca which is always good news.

Just send the 'account in dispute letter' below.

Account In Dispute

 

Ref:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

On xx/xx/2009 I made a formal lawful request for a true signed agreement for the alleged account under consumer credit Act 1974 s77/8. A copy of which is enclosed for your perusal and ease of reference.

You have failed to comply with my request, and as such the account entered default on xx/xx/2009.

 

The document that you are obliged to send me is a true copy of the executed agreement that contained all of the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and was signed by both your company and myself as defined in section 61(1) of CCA 74 and subsequent Statutory Instruments. If the executed agreement contained any reference to any other document, you are also obliged to send me a copy of that document.

 

Furthermore

 

 

You are aware that the Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for a request for a true copy of a credit agreement to be carried out before your client enters into a default situation.

 

This limit has expired.

 

As you are no doubt aware section 78(6) states:

 

If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1)

 

(a) He is not entitled , while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law.

 

As you have Failed to comply with a lawful request for a true, signed copy of the said agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, Failed to send a full statement of the account and Failed to provide any of the documentation requested.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Furthermore I shall counterclaim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment.

 

Please note you may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect.

 

This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

 

Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data.

 

It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Should you not respond within 14 days I expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

 

Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY

Action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

 

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

 

* You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

* You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

* You may not pass the account to a third party.

* You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

* You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

 

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit.

You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

NAME (print / do not sign)

every 4 to 6 weeks on average depends really on the creditor updating equifax.

You accepted the refund from them and therefore acknowledged you were not entitled to them.

Your position really depends on what amount is the owner asking for.

If he is asking for just 20 vouchers difference (50-10=40 difference each) then you have had a lucky escape and I would pay it.

However is he is wanting everything you have purchased on the vouchers (which i'm guessing is thousands if you have used all 100 vouchers several times) ?

Were you refunded for the vouchers like they said you would? 100x£10? if yes...

then you were never entitled to use them at all never mind more than once.

Again if you were refunded you would owe £50 x (how many vouchers you have used) x (the number of times you have used them).

if you were not refunded...

You were entitled to use the vouchers once.

As for court, it depends on whether or not you were refunded. However even if you weren't refunded you knew you couldn't use them more than once which will cause you some trouble.

Inspired by this thread from alanfromderby http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/online-stores/186003-asda-want-me-sue.html

I ordered goods from tesco.com but some of the items were missing and were substituted by something not even similar. I wouldn't accept the substitutions so they were returned. The products I ordered but not delivered were still available to order 2 days later at tesco.com so I made an order soley for the missing items. You guessed it, they were substituted again. This time the substituted items were simlilar but the quantity received was only on third.

I was not happy with this as I had paid two delivery charges and still hadn't received the items ordered and I had expressly stated on the order forms not to substitute the items on both orders.

I email tesco twice asking for a refund but got no reply.

I phoned up customer services who stated that they would not refund the delivery charges and wasn't interested that they would loose £5000 a year in business over £11 delivery charges.

When I stated that I would have no other option than to claim through the county court she stated ' do what ever you want'. So I have and have issued a claim for £11 damages, £15 compensation and £25 court costs.

They will now have to pay £51 (or pay alot more fighting it) and have lost £5000 a year in trade. Stupid people.

I followed uk's thread from day 1. It was always going to be a toughy and I'm happy UK has an outcome which was acceptable to him. Congrats to uk, pt and all those that helped. It is a victory for them and for CAG.

hope its good news

Then go to the police. As you have said, there is 'great debate' about whether it is a forgery.

I have yet to see anyone produce a forged signature.

good luck

As I wrote in my first post I am writing on behalf of a family member so I'd have to obtain both the docs and their permission to do so but not sure if posting signatures,forged or otherwise, would be wise on an open forum especially as this issue might well go further.

Maybe you can look at the cca itself. Is it enforceable? Does it contain all the prescibed terms and are the amounts plus calculations correct?

can you scan both copies of the debtors sigs and post up? (customer copy and requested cca copy)

A missing creditors signature won't be a bar to enforcement, so there was no need for them to 'allegedly' forge it.

Ultimately, it is only the borrowers sig thats the important bit.

I would contact manchester trading standards and ask them to intervene

That website is dodgy I must say.

For a start it doesn't display the Typical APR%, the repayments don't add up to the total amount payable (£50.10 x 3 doesnt =140), the application doesn't contain any pre contract info, no consumer credit licence number, no info about how they will process your personal data etc etc.

I wonder if it is licenced or is registered as a data controller?

UPDATE:

Two Labour peers face suspension from Parliament for six months after being found guilty of misconduct.

Ex-trade minister Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn were accused by the Sunday Times of being willing to change laws in exchange for cash.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Two Labour peers face suspension

I also read that a report is due to be published about the peers who were paid to change laws ( lord taylor for experian)

BBC NEWS | Politics | Peers await report into conduct

They are separate issues.

If there is no cca (or a signed one)then the debt is unenforcable in court.

Once you have requested it and they don;t supply it within 12+2 days then send the account in dispute letter. Littlewoods normally admit they don't hold a copy.

To claim back charges (admin, late fee's etc) is a seperate issue.

Ps. If you wish to alter the cca request it's s78 for littlewoods catalogue.

You don't need to amend the standard cca request letter, just leave the s77/78.

Normally a subject access request would only be used to find additional info out (like charges).

If there are alot of charges you may want to claim it back

Yeh, I kinda gathered that. What's that, £10 a hit for each request? Going to have to be done at some point, anyway.

 

Does anyone think that I'll be able to see the 'footprint' of the illegal view of my file, or will it have been removed by the swine that looked at it?

Its £2 per credit report.

 

" Please could you give an indication of the information you will be providing when giving evidence to the court or providing information to the relevant authorities in relation to the alleged subject matter of the account". Can someone tell me what these guys mean?

 

that is the standard reply from moorcroft. Ignore it and continue with the cca process.

Debt recovery director prosecuted - 17/04/2009

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined the director of a debt recovery firm more than £6,000 for bombarding individuals and businesses with unwanted faxes.

The prosecution was successfully launched against Robert Logan, director of Preston-based Clear Debt Solutions (CDS), after more than 500 complaints from individuals and businesses flooded into the ICO and the Fax Preference Service (FPS).

Logan pleaded guilty to 13 offences relating to breaches of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations. He has been fined £400 per charge plus costs and must now pay a total of £6,274.53.

In September 2007 the ICO issued CDS with an enforcement notice ordering the company to stop sending unwanted faxes to individuals and companies who were registered with the FPS, a list of telephone numbers where the subscribers have registered an objection to receiving unsolicited faxes, or who had not given consent to receiving such faxes.

Despite the enforcement notice, and Logan being questioned under caution, the ICO and the FPS continued to receive complaints about unsolicited faxes, receiving a further 822 since October 2007.

Mick Gorrill, assistant commissioner at the ICO, said: "Unsolicited marketing faxes can be just as irritating and intrusive as unwanted marketing phone calls.

"This practice is unacceptable and our action against Mr Logan sends out a strong signal to any unscrupulous businesses that flout the rules – we will prosecute for systemic non-compliance with the Data Protection Act."

Credit Today online