Next Digital Signatures on CCA

[cadencealex]

If you applied for an account online, is it subject to the Digital Signatures amendment?!

 

I took the account out in September 2004 and was under the impression that the Act wasn't amended until later?

 

Catalogue company don't have a CCA that I signed, yet are saying I accepted terms and conditions every time I placed an order, and it is also valid online.

[bobbyh99]

I had a default removed from an old Next account which was purchased by Robinson Way.

 

The kept spouting on about "no signed agreements because it is a mail order account".

 

My ex partner opended this account in my name. The upshot was that I wrote loads of letters and the DCA finally got fed up with me and deleted all information from the CRA's and wrote off the balance!

[cadencealex]

I had a default removed from an old Next account which was purchased by Robinson Way.

 

The kept spouting on about "no signed agreements because it is a mail order account".

 

My ex partner opended this account in my name. The upshot was that I wrote loads of letters and the DCA finally got fed up with me and deleted all information from the CRA's and wrote off the balance!

 

 

Excellent Well done you!!!!

 

 

My default was registered by Next though themselves a few years ago.. they said they passed it to Lewis but Lewis returned it back to Next, so right now it is with Next again.

 

 

When was your account opened?

 

 

 

They said I can begin paying Next again now though... but it would have to be a substantial first payment amount if I want them to keep them from passing the debt on. My argument is you can't pass it on as I never signed anything.

[bobbyh99]

The account was opened in August 2000 and defaulted by Next (apparently) in July 2006. Although Next nor RW could provide me with any documentation. Having said that RW did try and cobble together an assignment letter, but this was clearly made up when I asked for it, as they put wrong dates etc.

 

I think back in 2000 anyone could open a next account in anyone's else's name! But no CCA and they are buggered!

[cadencealex]

The account was opened in August 2000 and defaulted by Next (apparently) in July 2006. Although Next nor RW could provide me with any documentation. Having said that RW did try and cobble together an assignment letter, but this was clearly made up when I asked for it, as they put wrong dates etc.

 

I think back in 2000 anyone could open a next account in anyone's else's name! But no CCA and they are buggered!

 

 

 

Well they put up a decent fight though, even without CCAs!

 

I was told on the phone, when she rang, that they are winning in Courts and it is entirely upto the Judges discretion!!

 

 

What I don't get is... if THEY, the OC can't enforce it... why are they passing them to DCAs? What is their purpose then, because as far as I can see their only purpose would be to bully and harass/cause embarassment/distress...

[bobbyh99]

I haven't heard of any wins by Next on this issue!

The can't enforce, they know they aren't going to get any money, so sell all the debt to the DCA (for about 3% of the debt), who then use all the dirty tricks to get you to pay, making a huge profit because for every 1 person that doesn't pay, there are 20 people that do!

[cadencealex]

I haven't heard of any wins by Next on this issue!

The can't enforce, they know they aren't going to get any money, so sell all the debt to the DCA (for about 3% of the debt), who then use all the dirty tricks to get you to pay, making a huge profit because for every 1 person that doesn't pay, there are 20 people that do!

 

 

Well when she said I should make a 'substantial' payment on the account if I don't want it passed to a DCA.. I almost said ' get lost, I'd rather pay the DCA loads less to have it satisfied' but I didn't

 

Have you heard of ANY company winning a case without a valid CCA ?

[bobbyh99]

No I haven't, thats not to say there isn't any though!

[cadencealex]

No I haven't, thats not to say there isn't any though!

 

 

No but many people seem to be getting the defaults removed when the company admits they don't have a valid CCA

 

They would save a lot of money if they played fair in the first place

[cadencealex]

Next have replied to my letter, it will be sent tomorrow.

 

God knows what could be in it, she said the legal team were confirming the drafting was OK to send. Then it will be sent tomorrow.

[blind-as-a-bat]

Next have replied to my letter, it will be sent tomorrow.

 

God knows what could be in it, she said the legal team were confirming the drafting was OK to send. Then it will be sent tomorrow.

 

Do i read that as it confused them:p

 

I would not hold your breath, they will try get round it somehow, be intresting to see how though:)

 

Wont mean there right though, or not trying to pull the wool over your eyes either in that reply, but im no legal expert either, we shall have to wait and see what they say, then find if there are holes in it;)

Edited February 12, 2009 by blind-as-a-bat

[cadencealex]

Do i read that as it confused them:p

 

I would not hold your breath, they will try get round it somehow, be intresting to see how though:)

 

Wont mean there right though, or not trying to pull the woll over your eyes either in that reply, but im no legal expert either, we shall have to wait and see what they say, then find if there are holes in it;)

 

 

She has been very nice dealing with me the lady, respect to her

 

I hate tying her in knots over the phone and she did promise to send me a default notice!

 

I am wondering what they could send me though, that a legal team would need to check?

 

I asked why she didn't have a generic letter to send me as a standard response and she confirmed that they didn't do that.

 

As I said to her, it is pointless me entering into any agreement with Next when I could satisfy the balance for much less of a cost with a DCA.

 

 

My question is this : Can I take them to Court over passing my details to credit reference agents, thus blacklisting me...

 

 

I am not disputing that I owe them this money.

 

Or would that be a problem?

[blind-as-a-bat]

She has been very nice dealing with me the lady, respect to her

 

I hate tying her in knots over the phone and she did promise to send me a default notice!

 

I am wondering what they could send me though, that a legal team would need to check?

 

I asked why she didn't have a generic letter to send me as a standard response and she confirmed that they didn't do that.Bull! but That was my goal with my letter, no template would fit it

 

As I said to her, it is pointless me entering into any agreement with Next when I could satisfy the balance for much less of a cost with a DCA.

 

My question is this : Can I take them to Court over passing my details to credit reference agents, thus blacklisting me...

 

 

I am not disputing that I owe them this money.

 

Or would that be a problem?

 

In theory yes, but the CRA's believe proof of payments over a period of time is enough to deem the data as correct, even without a CCA, which is a load of rubbish to any reasonable person, it is a matter that is being challenged, but as it stands now, it would be a hard slog to take that route, if i where you i would wait and see if they give us any ammo in there responce;)

[cadencealex]

In theory yes, but the CRA's believe proof of payments over a period of time is enough to deem the data as correct, even without a CCA, which is a load of rubbish to any reasonable person, it is a matter that is being challenged, but as it stands now, it would be a hard slog to take that route, if i where you i would wait and see if they give us any ammo in there responce;)

 

 

 

Hmm this is the most important Default to get removed to me. I am annoyed that even when you make payments, it STILL gives the Default at a horribly large amount

 

I am waiting in vain for a letter that is going to rectify this, what I need is a final response so I can take them to Court I suppose.

 

And God help me if I lose

[Jamesx81x]

Only way they dont need a valid CCA is if they can prove to a court you have made payments for goods from your account. If this is the case then the judge will say you obviously had an agreement to order the goods therefore pay the debt.

 

Not sure how often this has been done but it can be

[cadencealex]

Only way they dont need a valid CCA is if they can prove to a court you have made payments for goods from your account. If this is the case then the judge will say you obviously had an agreement to order the goods therefore pay the debt.

 

Not sure how often this has been done but it can be

 

 

I am not disputing I owe them money. I am disputing I gave them my signature to place information on my credit file.

[cadencealex]

Dear

I write further to your most recent email regarding your Next Directory account. Firstly I would like to advise that I have sought legal advice regarding your concerns since you first contacted us.

You state that Next do not have a contract for your account and are unable to assign the debt to a third party. To explain, a contract is accepted by a customer once an order is placed with us. Therefore, as you have neither denied ordering nor receiving the goods, a contract does exist between us and you.

With regards to your comments that the account “is being prepared for sale to an external Debt Collection Agency who post this sale will legally own the debt”, I can advise that this is standard industry practice and Next are within their right to do this. Whilst a signed copy of the credit agreement is not available for your account, the company who your account will be passed onto will be fully aware of this. Furthermore the lack of a signed agreement simply means that the agreement is unenforceable except on order of the court. The agreement is not void or unlawful (Wilson V First County Trust 2003).

Turning now to your notes regarding the processing of your data, you have asked for us to provide strict documentary evidence stating consent was granted. There is no legal requirement to do this and the Data Protection Act 1998 makes clear that consent to process data does not have to be in writing. Consent can be implied or inferred by actions. It is a requirement to provide you with a fair processing notice i.e. details of the processing that would take place if you placed an order and opened an account. This was provided to you and Next are satisfied that this can be proved to a court should it be necessary.

Finally, as you will be aware under Section 10 (3) of the Data Protection Act, a Data Controller has 21 days in which to indicate whether he accepts a data subject notice or whether he refuses it and his grounds for doing so. I can therefore formally respond to your data subject notice by confirming that Next will not be making the amendments you request and that we rely on the exemptions made in Schedule 2 (section 6) of the Data Protection Act 1998 for this. Therefore we will continue to share your payment records with the agencies.

Please note I have enclosed a full copy of our complaints procedure, which includes details of how to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). However, FOS cannot decide upon the enforceability of the credit agreement as it was entered into prior to April 2007. By way of explanation, the FOS can only consider cases about events that have occurred after 6th April 2007, and not simply complaints made after this date, in relation to incidents that have occurred prior. I have also arranged for a copy of the default notice to be sent to you as you have requested.

I hope my explanation to each of your comments resolves your concerns and finally brings this matter to a close, although if you wish to refer your complaint to any other external bodies, this is of course your prerogative.

With kind regards,

[cadencealex]

Our Ref:

Dear

I write further to your most recent email regarding your Next Directory account. Firstly I would like to advise that I have sought legal advice regarding your concerns since you first contacted us.

You state that Next do not have a contract for your account and are unable to assign the debt to a third party. To explain, a contract is accepted by a customer once an order is placed with us. Therefore, as you have neither denied ordering nor receiving the goods, a contract does exist between us and you.

With regards to your comments that the account “is being prepared for sale to an external Debt Collection Agency who post this sale will legally own the debt”, I can advise that this is standard industry practice and Next are within their right to do this. Whilst a signed copy of the credit agreement is not available for your account, the company who your account will be passed onto will be fully aware of this. Furthermore the lack of a signed agreement simply means that the agreement is unenforceable except on order of the court. The agreement is not void or unlawful (Wilson V First County Trust 2003).

Turning now to your notes regarding the processing of your data, you have asked for us to provide strict documentary evidence stating consent was granted. There is no legal requirement to do this and the Data Protection Act 1998 makes clear that consent to process data does not have to be in writing. Consent can be implied or inferred by actions. It is a requirement to provide you with a fair processing notice i.e. details of the processing that would take place if you placed an order and opened an account. This was provided to you and Next are satisfied that this can be proved to a court should it be necessary.

Finally, as you will be aware under Section 10 (3) of the Data Protection Act, a Data Controller has 21 days in which to indicate whether he accepts a data subject notice or whether he refuses it and his grounds for doing so. I can therefore formally respond to your data subject notice by confirming that Next will not be making the amendments you request and that we rely on the exemptions made in Schedule 2 (section 6) of the Data Protection Act 1998 for this. Therefore we will continue to share your payment records with the agencies.

Please note I have enclosed a full copy of our complaints procedure, which includes details of how to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). However, FOS cannot decide upon the enforceability of the credit agreement as it was entered into prior to April 2007. By way of explanation, the FOS can only consider cases about events that have occurred after 6th April 2007, and not simply complaints made after this date, in relation to incidents that have occurred prior. I have also arranged for a copy of the default notice to be sent to you as you have requested.

I hope my explanation to each of your comments resolves your concerns and finally brings this matter to a close, although if you wish to refer your complaint to any other external bodies, this is of course your prerogative.

With kind regards,

You can also contact the Customer Relations Management Team at Desford Road, Enderby, Leicester, LE19 4AT. Telephone: 0844 844 8315.

Complaints Handling Procedure

Next welcomes and learns from complaints and our aim is to deal with all complaints speedily and sympathetically, and all complaints are logged, investigated and responded to.

Financial Complaints

Next has made provision for:-

· Each complaint to be investigated by an employee who was not directly involved in the matter which is the subject of the complaint.

· Where Next decides that redress is appropriate, fair compensation will be provided for any acts or remissions for which it is responsible. However, appropriate redress will not always involve financial redress. It may, for example, simply involve an apology.

· Next will provide written acknowledgement of a complaint within 5 working days of receipt, giving the name and job title of the individual handling the complaint.

· Next will endeavour to resolve complaints at the earliest possible stage.

· Within 4 weeks of receiving a complaint, Next will provide either:-

(i) a final response, or

(ii) a holding response, which will explain why we are not in a position to resolve the complaint and indicate when further contact will be made, which must be within 8 weeks of receipt of the complaint.

· Within 8 weeks of receiving a complaint, Next will provide either:-

(i) a final response, or

(ii) a response which:-

(a) explains that we are still not in a position to make the final response, giving reasons for the further delay and indicating when we expect to be able to provide a final response, and

(b) to advise that the complaint can be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service if you are unhappy with the delay.

· The final response will inform you how to refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service if you are dissatisfied with the final response and that you must do so within 6 months.

· Next will ensure that an explanatory leaflet from the Financial Ombudsman Service is enclosed with the final response, unless this has previously been sent to you.

· Next will retain records of complaints for a minimum period of 3 years from the date of receipt of the complaint.

· Next will fully comply with the Financial Ombudsman Service in the handling of complaints against the company.

[ncf355]

What a load of.......

 

 

SCHEDULE 1 The data protection principles

 

Part I The principles

 

1 Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless—

(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and

(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

 

 

To that end, I cant see them meeting any of the below, so tell thewm to stick that!

 

 

 

 

SCHEDULE 3 Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of sensitive personal data

 

1 The data subject has given his explicit consent to the processing of the personal data.

2 (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of exercising or performing any right or obligation which is conferred or imposed by law on the data controller in connection with employment.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) exclude the application of sub-paragraph (1) in such cases as may be specified, or

(b) provide that, in such cases as may be specified, the condition in sub-paragraph (1) is not to be regarded as satisfied unless such further conditions as may be specified in the order are also satisfied.

3 The processing is necessary—

(a) in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another person, in a case where—

(i) consent cannot be given by or on behalf of the data subject, or

(ii) the data controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject, or

(b) in order to protect the vital interests of another person, in a case where consent by or on behalf of the data subject has been unreasonably withheld.

4 The processing—

(a) is carried out in the course of its legitimate activities by any body or association which—

(i) is not established or conducted for profit, and

(ii) exists for political, philosophical, religious or trade-union purposes,

(b) is carried out with appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects,

© relates only to individuals who either are members of the body or association or have regular contact with it in connection with its purposes, and

(d) does not involve disclosure of the personal data to a third party without the consent of the data subject.

5 The information contained in the personal data has been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the data subject.

6 The processing—

(a) is necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings),

(b) is necessary for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or

© is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

7 (1) The processing is necessary—

(a) for the administration of justice,

(b) for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under an enactment, or

© for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) exclude the application of sub-paragraph (1) in such cases as may be specified, or

(b) provide that, in such cases as may be specified, the condition in sub-paragraph (1) is not to be regarded as satisfied unless such further conditions as may be specified in the order are also satisfied.

8 (1) The processing is necessary for medical purposes and is undertaken by—

(a) a health professional, or

(b) a person who in the circumstances owes a duty of confidentiality which is equivalent to that which would arise if that person were a health professional.

(2) In this paragraph “medical purposes” includes the purposes of preventative medicine, medical diagnosis, medical research, the provision of care and treatment and the management of healthcare services.

9 (1) The processing—

(a) is of sensitive personal data consisting of information as to racial or ethnic origin,

(b) is necessary for the purpose of identifying or keeping under review the existence or absence of equality of opportunity or treatment between persons of different racial or ethnic origins, with a view to enabling such equality to be promoted or maintained, and

© is carried out with appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify circumstances in which processing falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) is, or is not, to be taken for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)© to be carried out with appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects.

10 The personal data are processed in circumstances specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.

[cadencealex]

Hiya

 

Thanks for your swift reply!

 

So what shall I send them in return? I see this is going to end up in Court isn't it!

[ncf355]

Just tell them it is not enough for them to rely on Schedule 2, as the data is financial data and is therefore "sensitive data" so they are required to meet at least one requirement of Schedule 3, which they cannot without you giving your explicit consent, which you do not

 

Also, the quote from Wilson is highly selective, the text of the judgment also states that where a agreement is unenforceable at law, they may not use common law to avoid this, which is what they are doing

 

(I would imagine someone else on here could word that better than me)

[cadencealex]

My response (what you have basically said)!

 

Thank you for your recent email. I would like to raise two issues.

 

SCHEDULE 1 The data protection principles

 

Part I The principles

 

1 Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless—

(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and

(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

 

SCHEDULE 3 Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of sensitive personal data

 

1 The data subject has given his explicit consent to the processing of the personal data.

2 (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of exercising or performing any right or obligation which is conferred or imposed by law on the data controller in connection with employment.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) exclude the application of sub-paragraph (1) in such cases as may be specified, or

(b) provide that, in such cases as may be specified, the condition in sub-paragraph (1) is not to be regarded as satisfied unless such further conditions as may be specified in the order are also satisfied.

3 The processing is necessary—

(a) in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another person, in a case where—

(i) consent cannot be given by or on behalf of the data subject, or

(ii) the data controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject, or

(b) in order to protect the vital interests of another person, in a case where consent by or on behalf of the data subject has been unreasonably withheld.

4 The processing—

(a) is carried out in the course of its legitimate activities by any body or association which—

(i) is not established or conducted for profit, and

(ii) exists for political, philosophical, religious or trade-union purposes,

(b) is carried out with appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects,

© relates only to individuals who either are members of the body or association or have regular contact with it in connection with its purposes, and

(d) does not involve disclosure of the personal data to a third party without the consent of the data subject.

5 The information contained in the personal data has been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the data subject.

6 The processing—

(a) is necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings),

(b) is necessary for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or

© is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

7 (1) The processing is necessary—

(a) for the administration of justice,

(b) for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under an enactment, or

© for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) exclude the application of sub-paragraph (1) in such cases as may be specified, or

(b) provide that, in such cases as may be specified, the condition in sub-paragraph (1) is not to be regarded as satisfied unless such further conditions as may be specified in the order are also satisfied.

8 (1) The processing is necessary for medical purposes and is undertaken by—

(a) a health professional, or

(b) a person who in the circumstances owes a duty of confidentiality which is equivalent to that which would arise if that person were a health professional.

(2) In this paragraph “medical purposes” includes the purposes of preventative medicine, medical diagnosis, medical research, the provision of care and treatment and the management of healthcare services.

9 (1) The processing—

(a) is of sensitive personal data consisting of information as to racial or ethnic origin,

(b) is necessary for the purpose of identifying or keeping under review the existence or absence of equality of opportunity or treatment between persons of different racial or ethnic origins, with a view to enabling such equality to be promoted or maintained, and

© is carried out with appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify circumstances in which processing falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) is, or is not, to be taken for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)© to be carried out with appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects.

10 The personal data are processed in circumstances specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.

 

 

My conclusion is, that it is not enough for Next Directory to rely on Schedule 2, as the data is financial data and is therefore "sensitive data" so you are required to meet at least one requirement of Schedule 3, which you cannot without me giving my explicit consent, which I did not.

 

Also, the quote from (Wilson V First County Trust 2003) is highly selective, the text of the judgment also states that where an agreement is unenforceable at law, you may not use common law to avoid this, which is what you are suggesting.

 

 

Kindest Regards

 

 

 

 

 

So lets see what I get back from that

[blind-as-a-bat]

 

Dear

 

I write further to your most recent email regarding your Next Directory account. Firstly I would like to advise that I have sought legal advice regarding your concerns since you first contacted us.

 

You state that Next do not have a contract for your account and are unable to assign the debt to a third party. To explain, a contract is accepted by a customer once an order is placed with us. Therefore, as you have neither denied ordering nor receiving the goods, a contract does exist between us and you.

 

With regards to your comments that the account “is being prepared for sale to an external Debt Collection Agency who post this sale will legally own the debt”, I can advise that this is standard industry practice and Next are within their right to do this. Whilst a signed copy of the credit agreement is not available for your account, the company who your account will be passed onto will be fully aware of this. Furthermore the lack of a signed agreement simply means that the agreement is unenforceable except on order of the court. The agreement is not void or unlawful (WilsonVFirstCounty Trust 2003).

Not exctly what i have read

 

The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) made it clear in paragraph 29 of LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD judgment

 

29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give

notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

Taken from Sir Andrew Morrits Judgment in the Court of Appeal in the Wilson & First Counties Trust case :

 

“In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift,of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

 

 

 

 

Turning now to your notes regarding the processing of your data, you have asked for us to provide strict documentary evidence stating consent was granted. There is no legal requirement to do this and the Data Protection Act 1998 makes clear that consent to process data does not have to be in writing. Consent can be implied or inferred by actions. It is a requirement to provide you with a fair processing notice i.e. details of the processing that would take place if you placed an order and opened an account. This was provided to you and Next are satisfied that this can be proved to a court should it be necessary. But there not willing to prove it to you now to avoid court action, oh dear:rolleyes: Question is, is that a bluff or not?

 

Finally, as you will be aware under Section 10 (3) of the Data Protection Act, a Data Controller has 21 days in which to indicate whether he accepts a data subject notice or whether he refuses it and his grounds for doing so. I can therefore formally respond to your data subject notice by confirming that Next will not be making the amendments you request and that we rely on the exemptions made in Schedule 2 (section 6) of the Data Protection Act 1998 for this. Therefore we will continue to share your payment records with the agencies.but with no agreemant what are they going to record? you cant breach what has not been, or can be proved to have been agreed too

 

Please note I have enclosed a full copy of our complaints procedure, which includes details of how to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). However, FOS cannot decide upon the enforceability of the credit agreement as it was entered into prior to April 2007. By way of explanation, the FOS can only consider cases about events that have occurred after 6th April 2007, and not simply complaints made after this date, in relation to incidents that have occurred prior. I have also arranged for a copy of the default notice to be sent to you as you have requested.again anotice of default against what? there is no agreement for you to be in default off

I hope my explanation to each of your comments resolves your concerns and finally brings this matter to a close, although if you wish to refer your complaint to any other external bodies, this is of course your prerogative.

 

With kind regards,

 

 

 

 

They are danceing round thie issues as i thought they would, and basicaly saying we wont stop prscessing your data unless you take us to court.

 

Whether they can prove what they claim is another matter

[ncf355]

Cool

 

Best of luck

[cadencealex]

Cool

 

Best of luck

 

 

Many thanks! Let's see what they come back with