Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'protrection'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums

Categories

  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition
  • Homegirlxx

Categories

  • The Youth Academy
    • The Youth Consumer Service
  • Miscellaneous

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location

Found 1 result

  1. Hi, May 2006, we received a document from Land Registry, stating that an ICO had been applied for, and that a COPY of the ICO had been sent to them by the applicant should we wish to see it . Neither myself nor my O/ H were familiar with the Company or the Solicitors involved. We then received a letter from the solicitors acting on behalf of the Company, a few weeks later dated June 2006, upon reading the contents of the letter, we were disgusted to find that the alleged debt had already been before the courts on 3 separate occasions, without our knowledge. A FCO had been obtained just 5 days before the letter was drafted. Once again we were completely oblivious to the alleged debts existence. A sealed copy of the FCO had been enclosed within the letter, both the ICO and FCO were obtained Many many miles away, it also stated that an ICO had been obtained in April 2006, again without our knowledge. It also stated that a Default Judgment had been obtained back in 2005, by way of a MCOL, We have never seen any documentation for the Default Judgment , or the ICO order, to say I was fuming was an understatement. I sent a letter in reply, to all the comments within the letter, I stated that as far as we were concerned the alleged debt was nothing at all to do with myself or my O/H, I stated that they were the lowest form of life on earth after deceitfully obtaining judgment on an alleged debt, without any chance to enter a defence. I stated that I required valid documents to prove the ownership of the alleged debt and until the valid documents were produced the Debt would remain in dispute Letter Ping Pong with the company whereby in 2008, after receiving another letter, it was stated that the alleged debt was ascertaining to a "Credit Card" in my O/H name and with a company called the Associates. The letter then went on to state that as no payments had been made to reduce the debt, they were going to instruct their solicitors "LCS" to take further action through the courts, the letter went on to offer a consolidation loan which would be arranged by LCS. Once again a letter was sent in reply stating that as far as We were concerned the alleged debt was still in dispute, as the requested documentation back in 2006, had never materialised, and until the requested documentation was produced the debt would remain indefinitely in dispute. cutting A LONG STORY short, in 2010 a stat demand appeared for the alleged debt, but the information entered on the demand was totally different to the information I had on the Original documents, EG; Incorrect Company stated as the owners of the debt, incorrect Case Nos: and reference Nos: Used,, I thought that they were just trying to coerce me into making pmt on the alleged debt with their antics. I was also unable to understand why again another Solicitors were involved now acting for this other company who were claiming that the debt belonged to them. Contacted the Court re the claim no's and owners of the debt, Only to find that the case had been transferred to" Reigate County Court" and that they had got "LCS" as the Solicitors. I then explained that I had solicitors [1] and company[03752940] registered by way of a restriction against O/H beneficial interest since 2006, and they had got Company[03752940] and LCS as solicitors, and now 2011 lo and behold company No;[04140507] and Solicitors" Welbeck LAW LLP" WERE STATING IN THEIR STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE THE SOLICITORS WHO HAD BEEN DEALING WITH THE ALLEGED DEBT, AND HAD made a statement of truth to that effect. I was told by the lady at court that each time a new solicitor was engaged then the courts and myself should have been informed this was a requirement of CPR rules and practice directions as set out in the cca 1974 legislations. In 2011 we received a Bankruptcy order for my O/H, upon visiting the O/R we explained that the debt had been in dispute since 2006, and that a diferent Company and different solicitors had otained the Bankruptcy order, whilst the courts had a company and LCS as the solicitors. I had Company[03752940] and a completely different solicitor, registered against our property, I told the O/R that we had requested valid documentation re the alleged debt, but none had ever been produced. I stated that the alleged debt did not belong to my O/H, the O/R completely ignored the fact that the debt was disputed and that no valid documents had ever been produced, and when I asked him about the different companies involved and the different solicitors being used I was told that the companies were one and the same. upon quizzing him re the different claim no's being used I was told that it must just be an admin error, I stated that the charge was still against the property although a secured creditor should not be able to make you bankrupt, without giving up the security on the property. after phoning Companies House myself I was told that if each company had their own unique reg no then they were classed as separate entities, I told the O/R this and also told the Insolvency practitioners, but once again it fell on deaf ears. I got in touch with the FOS in October 2012, as I was fed up requesting valid documents, and the Insolvency Practitioners were being incooperative after I had an argument with them over data protection issues which were explained as small admin errrors, in which some of the documents in my husbands name have never been located, they stated in their next letter that all office staff had been told NOT to discuss annulment anymore as they were going ahead with the bankruptcy, this was purely a vexatious move on their part . The FOS contacted them and I am going to let you see their final response letter, which abuses most of the legislations within the CCA 1974 act, and completely goes against all the sanctions imposed upon them by the OFT in 2009, and have ignored and abused the CPR rules and directions that are in place to protect the consumer. The default judgment was obtained by deception by way of MCOL which states that the agreement is still needed at the court, hence we were not told of the alleged debt, as if a defence had been entered they would have had to produce the AGREEMENT. ALSO AFTER STUDYING THE CCA 1974 ACT FOR QUITE AWHILE I CAME ACROSS THE After requesting for valid documentation for an alleged debt in 2006,
×
×
  • Create New...