Help needed with Shop Direct/Kays

[flubbergirl]

Back in April 2007 I was not too well, having just come out of hospital, and my husband was dealing with all my affairs. Unbeknown to me he had received a letter from Moorcroft about some money I allegedly owed to Kays and started making payments.

 

When I was a bit better and found this out, I wrote to Moorcroft in August 2007 denying all knowledge of the debt and asking for a copy of the credit agreement. I received a letter back from them, dated 7th August, stating that they were unable to supply a copy of the agreement.

 

I then sent them a letter, dated 10th August 2007, reminding them of their obligations under CCA. Despite this I received a letter from them asking for payment and threatening to send a collection agent round.

 

I wrote to them again on 23rd August 2007 telling them not to bother contacting me again until they were in possession of a signed credit agreement. I then heard nothing until February 2008 when I received a letter from Fredricksons.

 

I wrote to Fredricksons saying that the alleged account was in dispute, that Moorcroft could not supply a credit agreement and requesting that the account be returned to Moorcroft for resolution.

 

Since then I have heard nothing from either Moorcroft or Fredricksons but recently received a letter from Shop Direct. As you will see from the letter here they have written in response to a ‘recent request’ for a copy of the agreement but they are still unable to locate a copy of the agreement.

They also say their record show some payments having been made in the last 12 months but this is total rubbish. The last ‘payment’ made to anyone in relation to the alleged account was the payment of £1 to Moorcroft for the CCA request on 2nd August 2007.

 

They also mention a copy of the current agreement, which can be found here. Obviously they have nothing with my signature on so I am assuming they don’t have a leg to stand on. I would welcome any advice as how to proceed from this point.

　

　

 

[cerberusalert]

I'd be tempted to send them Scots letter below & see what their response is;

 

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me, the contents of which are noted. I appreciate your quick response to my original letter. However, the reply received by me does not fulfil your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter.

 

My request remains outstanding. The items you sent in your reply, does not constitute a true copy of any credit agreement that may or may not have been signed by me on the opening of this account. It neither confirms that I am liable for any alleged debt to you, nor gives me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’.

 

I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that you allege exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law.

 

You had until XX/XX/2008 to provide me with the true copy I requested. You are now in default of my request. Any account I hold with you is now in legal dispute. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agency.

 

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

 

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office

 

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. Whilst you remain in default of my request, you are not permitted to take any action against this account. This includes adding further charges and passing any information to the credit reference agencies.

 

Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

Print name do not sign

 

**amend to suit your circumstances.**

[flubbergirl]

Thanks for the reply but I think you have missed the point. It was hardly a fast response since I requested the agreement just over 2 years ago - when I made reference to a 'recent request' I was being sarcastic.

 

Also they do not allege a credit agreement exists as they say they haven't got one. If they haven't got one surely they can't take any further action and they should not be able to put anything on my credit history.

 

As they have effectively said they haven't got a true copy of the executed credit agreement but here is what one would like if we had one -I was thinking of sending them a photocopy of a £50 note as 'payment' and saying sorry but I haven't got a true copy of of a £50 note but here is what one would like if I had one!

[cerberusalert]

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your letter of xxxxxxx telling me what my agreement would have looked like. Please see below what payment would have looked like if you had been able to provide an enforceable agreement;

 

Yours Truly,

[flubbergirl]

That's much better than my idea - but is it not just a bit cheeky and inviting trouble?

[cerberusalert]

That's much better than my idea - but is it not just a bit cheeky and inviting trouble?

 

Why? You are responding to them in the same way as they did to you. Besides what can they do about it in the absence of an enforceable agreement, besides spit their dummy out.