Just to update this, I had such trouble getting a breakdown of loans from QQ that I ended up complaining to the ICO. The very next day I got the information I'd been asking for, for months, plus £200 compensation on top from QQ.

I've wondered that before. Anybody know how many adjudicators there are roughly? I find it slightly embarrassing to have two complaints of a similar nature looked at by the same person, for some reason.

It's taken almost a year (see my post from October on page 1) but the FOS have upheld my complaint against QuickQuid. They are to repay all interest for 76 out of 79 loans, plus simple interest at 8%, plus £350 compensation. It's a huge five figure sum. FOS agreed that QuickQuid's checks were inadequate and that the loans were unaffordable. I can't dance just yet because despite FOS making their final decision 29 days ago, QQ are yet to contact me and are back to ignoring all correspondence from me. I will do the same with Wonga now I think!

Ah goodie... Robbing**** Way are involved with one of the accounts now. CCA'd them. Interestingly (or perhaps not), they sent two letters in the same envelope, one of which is branded up as them and the other has some fabricated letter header and footer representing the original creditor. My Dad assumed it was from the creditor, but it isn't. It explains that the debt has been sold (to Hoist). That's not cricket is it. I guess it doesn't matter much, but to the layman it gives the impression that the letter is from someone other than RW. Not sure what I can read into that, but let's see if they can produce the agreement. As an extra bit of news, the Link Financial CCA request resulted in them replying to say that they have to ask the original creditor (MBNA) for the agreement, so something else to look forward to.

They were 2nd largest actually - 12k. I wrote to them 4 times over the course of 4 months before they refused the lower payments. CCA in Dec, nothing heard from them since.

With the exception of Smile, yes. I have to say, they were all very good about it. My parents find it all very worrying, so as long as the creditors are willing to accept the reduced payments, then they will keep paying. If they sell to DC's or stop taking reduced payments, then I will CCA each one in turn.

Update. Well, all of the creditors agreed reduced payments except for Smile. Tesco ignored all of my letters and passed the debt to Wescott. I CCA'd Wescott, which resulted in the debt being passed back to Tesco and the reduced payment accepted. The latest is that MBNA have sold the debt for that card to Link Financial so I have CCA'd them. Previously, they'd accepted a reduced payment plan but have since got bored I suspect. Odd, MBNA didn't even ask for the balance themselves before they sold it. I fully expect all of these accounts to go the same way in the end but so long as it's on a one-by-one basis I can keep up! Smile were CCA'd in December and haven't responded, so payments to them have been stopped. All but two of their accounts were opened pre-2007.

The collection sounds like rubbish to me. You made the request, they have your address, they should post it IMO. However, for the sake of moving things forward, I'd ensure it was ready and arrange to collect if it helps the cause. Another black mark for them, not cooperating fully. On the drug company, if some truly unexpected event occurred and was directly associated with the meds, then assuming that the drug was administered correctly and of the correct dose, Saffi was in a fit state and suitable and of the correct weight, etc, etc, etc, then that is probably a dead end in terms of the vet being to blame. But there is still nothing to lose in formally requesting the info from them. I'll be honest, it's a long road for you. It takes many hours of letter writing and many weeks in-between responses. I think the reason I got so far along the road was because I was willing to do investigation myself (something RCVS seem very unwilling to do) and I then went through their Guide to Prof Con and noted each and every point that I could in order to help the case - so that they couldn't just ignore it. I even threatened to take RCVS to court on more than one occasion which did get things moving when they otherwise had come to a halt! Ultimately, all we ever wanted was an apology from the vet and to learn the truth. In the end we got neither and it took over a year. I suspect the same is true for you. There's a big difference between an honest vet who is willing to hold their hands up and admit they made a mistake and one which denies everything. It just makes you want justice for the sake of your puss. Get the notes and take it from there. For us, they were quite revealing in parts and very useful even though they'd been edited. And importantly, see if you can get the notes from RVC that they had sent to them from your vet. You can use them to compare against the ones direct from your vet and make sure they are the same. Lastly, it's against the rules for one vet to bad-mouth another. So, if you do manage to gain anything from the one who left, be careful what you do with the info as you could get them into trouble. Our "real" vet did reveal information candidly, but I did nothing with it.

Senus, I'm sorry you lost your reply! That's very frustrating isn't it. Was Saffi having regular blood analysis? One thing we learned from our Cat Lady, was to make sure that we always do geriatric blood testing in future at least once a year once our cats get older. I'm wondering if perhaps Saffi had an underlying confidition which had gone unnoticed. If there had been blood tests, then you may well be able to rule some things out and make your case stronger. If you haven't done so already, I would send a Subject Access Request letter to the vet. Assuming you haven't, here's the body text from the letter I sent to my vet in order to get everything. This is a little different to the usual because after reading the RCVS Guide to Prof Conduct, Part 2A (7) seemed pertinent. Since then, they've updated their guide and the relevant clause is now contained within secton 13.6 http://www.rcvs.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/pdf/ Section 13.6 is on page 63. It reads (in part): Again, if it was me, I'd also send a Subject Access Request to the RVC Hospital AND the Vet Med Directorate (you can email them for this apparently, at [email protected] but I would send it signed for to all three - the vet, the RVC hosp and the vet med dir). I won't harp on too much in case you've already done this. But in any case, here was my letter (I've updated the section ref): Dear Vet Under Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 and in line with Section 13.6 of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, I request that you send copies by return of: 1) All invoices raised against consultations and treatment for [cat name]. 2) Copies of all test results 3) Full medical record for [cat name] 3) Any other contemporaneous notes you may have. I have enclosed a cheque for £10 as required by law to satisfy this subject access request. Under the act, you have 40 days to supply this information. Failure to supply the requested information will result in a court order being obtained against you to comply with the request. Finally, please make any further correspondence in writing and not by telephone. If you haven't done this yet and in doing so, you obtain the medical history for Saffi, be warned that it can make for an upsetting read so set aside some time for it and don't be alone when you read it. James

Hi Jerbean. I've just read your thread, did you manage to get a copy of the full medical history for your cat in the end? If you did send the SAR request mid december, the 40 day limit would be up by now...

Reading back through this thread, I realised that I never updated it with the final outcome. A vet and an investigator from RCVS eventually came to our house to talk about it all. They said that they believed us throughout. Without so much as saying it, they indicated that they knew she had lied, cheated, covered things up and was at fault and that the only reason they didn't proceed to a hearing was that the standard of evidence just wasn't high enough. That annoyed me because they certainly could have taken steps (as I mentioned before) to obtain evidence by methods I couldn't do myself, but chose not to. And so again, the bottom line is - don't bother with RCVS unless it's sex/drug related as a rule of thumb. I remember there being some movement towards the underlying law being changed to cater for negligence claims but in 2011/12 this was nothing more than a green paper and seemed years off coming into effect, if at all.

£3,800 is a fair whack isn't it. The notes we received from our "vet" had been heavily edited. We knew this was the case because of some glaring mistakes and there was even evidence of a "newer" user of their system logged against notes which were created prior to that user existing (i.e. editing). I begged RCVS to ask her to produce a backup for comparison against the printed report we received. They're so out of date that they couldn't see or understand my reasoning, but I'm a software engineer and knew it was possible to have it verified it using a number of methods. They don't have the knowledge or the power. If you look at most of the cases where vets have been struck off, it's usually related to sexual offences (both humans and animals) or drug related (i.e. misuse of prescription drugs). They admitted that they don't have the ability to do what I asked - even though they are sitting on a cash pile of millions of pounds. Outside of that, evidence has to be of the same quality that you might use in a court of law when convicting a murderer, for example. I must stress that this "vet" wasn't our regular vet - she's just somebody who earns an income from driving around putting animals to sleep in Sussex. She used to advertise her services as a vet but now only does euthanasia in a big, fancy Range Rover Evoque. I even complained about that to RCVS, it can't be right to earn a crust putting animals to sleep, not least because not all of them will actually need it. Veterinary care first, euthanasia second, in my opinion. But again, RCVS didn't think that mattered. Back to your poor puss, it's very painful when you lose a cat and even more painful when you know that if not for the actions of a particular person, that cat would probably be around today. The anger will never go away so be prepared for that. It's still as raw for us now as it was back in 2010 - it was this day in 2010 in fact and we've only just got back to exchanging valentines cards! The vaccination, was it just the usual annual ones that cats have? I don't understand from what you said, was it the case that he was ill after the first one and then became gravely ill one year later after the second?

Sensus, certainly the way to go. Unfortunately we learned the hard way that the RCVS aren't fit for purpose. It ends up being a long, drawn out process to complain through them and even when presented with tonnes of evidence (we even had falsified test results), only the absolute minority get justice (less than 1%).

Hmmm - Quickquid said via email, when asked for info on my previous loans; "Please forward your request along with your cheque for £10.00 ( the cost of the copies requested, per loan or extension)" Per loan or extension? Surely that's not correct? I have sent £10 for everything... Anyone had similar?

I've had a copy sent of the T&C's but unfortunately the copy isn't readable. The main features of the front page are OK, but the T&'C's are pants.

The loan was taken out in June 2005 over 7 years. Last payment was Dec 2007, default added Nov 2008. Was sold to the claimant in Dec 2012, Notice of assignment was sent in Jan 2013, court claim was made in Apr 2014 - I don't know why it's taken so long to get to this point from April, don't have all the details yet.

Thanks. It was a loan. Original amount was 7k, plus interest - they are claiming just under 10k.

I've heard back... "I contacted the court about mediation and the phone number didn't work, I emailed them and it bounced back saying they had changed details but would contact me within 5 working days. Nothing.. In the direct questionnaire before this I said I was open to mediation and they didn't contact me. Went to preliminary on Monday, judge said he was confused by what they had sent him. I had to explain it all to him. He said he could see my point and that he thinks it will need to go to a hearing to be decided in which case I can then present my evidence as I did to him."

I'm helping somebody this evening, they've come to me a bit late but never mind. Bryan Carter issued a court claim in Aug 2014 for a debt for which last had a payment Dec 2007. Defendant entered a defence on the basis that the debt is statute barred. Some mediation took place, no details of that yet and a prelim hearing was arranged for 3 days ago, I'm waiting to find out what happened there on both counts. Prior to that, a letter from Bryan Carter said that they would not be attending that prelim hearing, acknowledged that the defendant says the debt is SB but then states it isn't SB because the account wasn't defaulted until Nov 2008 (11 months after the last payment). Copies of the statements which form part of the claim from BC show that there have been no payments indeed, since Dec 2007. I can only presume they are hoping the defendant will crack and not go to the hearing proper and leave BC winning by default. Not sure how they can claim the account is not SB because of the default. In their words: "x. The defendant in his defence states that the claim is state barred" "y. The account fell into default on xx Nov 2008. The account is not statute barred." Seems like utter nonsense to me. Do they act stupid on purpose, purely in hope? Seems like an easy one from here - write to the court asking them to strike out the claim on the basis of the debt being SB and write to BC asking for proof that payment was made in the 6 years leading up to them submitting a claim. As I understand it, 6 years starts upon the cause of action and not when the account was defaulted by the original creditor.

I wrote to Wonga yesterday asking for details on all loans I'd ever had from them and the amount paid in interest for each. Also QuickQuid. Thankfully, I'm out of the cycle I was once in. I never missed a payment to Wonga or QuickQuid though. I had 79 rollovers and repeat borrowings from QuickQuid and probably a similar number from Wonga. For QuickQuid I think that equates to around 28k of interest paid - absolute madness, but after initally getting into the cycle, it's hard to get out of and they know it.

Thanks Bazooka!

Just updating the thread. 11 have agreed reduced payments which is great and far better than I'd anticipated, which has been a fantastic help. Most have lodged a default, which is also good. 3 are outstanding- Smile, Tesco and Sainsbury's. Smile have refused the offer and so far are the only ones to do so, so I'm going to try again and send more info. Tesco and Sains are yet to acknowledge any of the letters, so I'll send the next ones signed for.

Well, so far they have had 5 out of 14 acceptance letters for the reduced payments, which is good. A couple (RBS and Santander) have asked for info on the balances for the other creditors. It's all been carved up fairly so I'm guess that they'd just like to see that the payment for them is fair. Just wanted to get it down on here in case anyone has another take on their reasoning...

Just updating the thread with progress... I prepared letters for all of the lenders, offering a lower pro-rata monthly payment and a budget sheet for each. Some debts were purely in my mums name, some were in my dads, some were joint. Where they were joint I included the budget sheet for both. Here's hoping that the offers are accepted! My Dad had become so obsessed with the silly score given to him on CreditExpert that he still believes he has a good credit rating, despite being in mountains of debt. Took a lot of explaining... At least they aren't going to be able to take out any more credit from this point on.

Brilliant, thanks - makes sense.