Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Funding concerns are expected to see Saudi Arabia reduce its giant building schemes.View the full article
    • Why the former Fujitsu engineer is such a key figure in the Post Office scandal.View the full article
    • next time dont panic and wet yourself and offer payment !! Date of issue – 14 june 2024 date for aos - 2nd july  date to file defence - 16th july      other than the CCA/CRP and if it ever gets that far..a witness statement, you send them NOTHING and dont ever instigate comms with them. esp by email.. i would be sending one final email in reply to theirs above. PLEASE NOTE: email is NOT to be used for any comms with regard to our mutual court claim. else they'll be sending a whole forest of faked agreements/documents to you one minute before a court deadline removing your shace to object/pull them apart as unenforceable etc. dx        
    • The EU and China still disagree about the import taxes, but have agreed to discuss them further.View the full article
    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However their reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

TalkTalk - is it acceptable to have a contract in an imaginary name?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4281 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts



We are having problems with Talk Talk. The situation is as follows. 'We' have a contract with TalkTalk at the moment. It is in an imaginary name. My mum's ex-partner has signed up to TalkTalk as Mr [random intial] [mums name and surname]. And pays on direct debit from his own account. Obviously such a Mr does not exist. Every time TalkTalk phones and we answer we explain to them that such a person as they wish to speak to does not exist, but they refuse to speak to me or my mum, they are only interested in a Mr [as we are both female we do not match the criteria].


The problem is that mums ex-partner is planning on moving out. He wanted to cancel the contract but missed the date and it automatically renewed; he then lied to mum and said that he can either cancel the contract or transfer it into her name [and that it would be better for her to start paying the direct debit herself]. Mum said no, and that she wants to change to Orange. Now he says he will cancel the direct debit and TalkTalk will pursue action against mum since she lives at the address of the contract and initially allowed TalkTalk to set up this contract with her ex-partner [since he needed her permission as the house is in her name].


I phoned up TalkTalk to ask them for what will happen if mums ex-partner cancels direct debit, but after waiting I ended up with the wrong customer service got transferred to a person with terrible manners who after asking me for my house number dropped me back into queue without any explanation. I then had to listen to music for over 30 minutes until I eventually gave up. Not sure how much help they would have been as they have previously refused to talk to us, and when we gave them the correct name of the ex-partner they have done nothing about the matter.


Can TalkTalk legally demand mum to pay? She never signed anything or paid them, and she is not a Mr. Can we sign up for Orange now while the phone line is still active? which would effectively cancel TalkTalk contract and her ex-partner would get the bill for early termination?


Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they can't make her the account-holder if the contract wasn't hers in the first place.


I think that the best thing you could do is to write to them and give them his real name and explain what has happened , that you have nothing to do with it and in any event the contract has nothing to do with you.


I have to say that I find it very difficult to believe that this contract extends autmatically for a year if it is not cancelled promptly.

It is more likley that after 12 months it goes on to a rolling monthly contract. The brief look I have had at TT's t&cs confirms this.


Have you got somthing in writing which says different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, it is not acceptable to use an imaginary name and you are inviting accusations of fraud or attempted fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the information. My mum does not have any paper work (just the 1st letter from 3 years ago), as the ex-partner keeps everything. He made a mess of a previous contract with BT before TalkTalk and made her pay, as always threatening her in the process. The only thing she doesn't remember whether originally when he was talking to them he asked to speak on her behalf. But she thinks she only gave him permission to do the contract himself. And any way he ended getting this contract essentially not in her name, but in an imaginary. As I said he always threatens mum about whatever action would be taken against her, and tells more lies than the truth. And she never gave him permission to renew any contracts (they might have offered him some benefits to sign up on a full year again instead of cancelling).


Him and fraud I wouldn't be surprised. He already had to go to court for one of those. And we did try to correct TalkTalk on numerous occasions.


I think we will post the letter out on Monday as per your advise and change to Orange (or do we need to hear back from them before then).


Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He sounds like a dangerous man. If he isn't out of the property yet then it might be better to wait until he goes.

When you feel safe then I owuld disclose everything to everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest TalkTalk Offical Company Rep

Hi Lij4onok,


If you tweet us @TalkTalkCare or join the TalkTalk Members Forum we can investigate into this in more depth.





TalKTalk Online Community Department

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Hi Lij4onok,


If you tweet us @TalkTalkCare or join the TalkTalk Members Forum we can investigate into this in more depth.





TalKTalk Online Community Department


Thank you everyone for the great advise. We have decided to take an active stand. The ex-partner is in the process of moving out, so there is no time to waste if we want to have internet and phone.


Mark, I am not sure how joining TalkTalk forum might help, when the company has inability to respond to something as simple as letters. [by me and my I mean as regards to mum:] I have followed the advise and wrote a letter stating the problem, repeating that it is not my account and has nothing to do with me. I have now received a reply. I am not even sure they bothered to read the letter as the response was pretty generic, and did not make sense as regards to the problem.


In summary. They thank me for contacting them, they understand my concern as regards to the name, but due to data protection act they require further information. All the further information required is to do with 'my account'. The information I obviously don't have as it is not my account, and I have no idea what the personal security answer, password, and even the bank account from which the ex-partner paid from is. In short it is an inconsiderate loop hole. We try telling them what the problem is, and as per usual (as with the numerous attempts to talk to them over the phone when they called) they refuse to correspond with me or mum. So essentially they want mum to admit that it is her account to be able to deal with the situation (which it isn't). This is just ridiculous! We have now signed up for Orange, so the account should automatically get cancelled. And how they are going to sort out the problem with the imaginary entity, who's data they are trying to protect and do not want to have the right data I have no idea.


Not sure what I should do now, as I do not feel I/we are not able to do anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...