Very ignoring letters

[Unclebob48]

I lost my job a year ago, but we managed to keep making the payments to Very for 10 months or so before we were no longer able to keep up with the minimum payments.

 

In November the debt was around £2300, so we contacted Payplan. As my total debts were below £5,000 they were only able to offer advice rather than a debt management plan, but they told us how to put together an income and expenditure etc and gave a few template letters to send off and gave us a Payplan Client ID to use in correspondence.

 

The first letter to Very.co.uk explaining our financial circumstances, requesting a suspension of fees and interest along with a monthly payment offer was sent on the 26th November by registered post and arrived at Very on the 27th November. It was ignored.

 

We sent a second letter to the same address on the 27th December, which Post Office track & trace shows arrived on the 28th. This letter was also ignored.

 

In a frustrated attempt to at least elicit some kind of response, I then fired off a CCA request using the template on this site to the same address by registered post.

 

Lo and behold they did manage to reply very promptly to the letter they are legally obliged to respond to and I have received a reply containing the following:

1. A reconstituted copy of the credit agreement sent to me at the time of opening the account (unsigned) and

2. A copy of the current credit agreement, which includes all applicable contractual variations and amendments that have taken place since the accout was opened.

 

What is my best course of action from this point?

[havinastella]

Hi Bob and welcome to CAG!

 

When was the account opened?

[Unclebob48]

Hi havinastella

 

The account was opened in May 2009.

[Unclebob48]

Despite ignoring two letters and an email to the CEO, Very have now sent me a letter accusing me of ignoring their correspondence. You couldn't make this **** up. The complaint is already drafted.

 

I think a letter to the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Ombudsman Service may also be in order, as under section 25(2A)(e) of the Consumer Credit Act they are required to communicate in a clear, accurate and transparent manner - I don't think stone-walling really fits that criteria.