chezt v's Littlewoods Catalogue **I WON**

[chezt]

Received AQ & defence today - here goes ....

 

1. the claim is denied in it's entirety
   
2. the claim for fails to properly identify the defendant which is referred to simply as 'Littlewoods'. For the avoidance of doubt this defence is filed on behalf of Littlewoods Shop Direct Home Shopping Limited (LSHDHSL) and Littlewoods Finance Company (LFCL) Cor how picky! How many other Littlewoods are at that address!? All is says on my statements anyway !
   
3. It is admitted that the claimant has purchased goods from LSDHSL by means of a credit account provided by LFCL with account number XXXXX (Who admitted that?)
   
4. It is specifically denided that LSDHSL has applied any charges to the claimants account with LFCL
   
5. It is admitted that LFCL has applied admin charges to the claimants account
   
6. It is specifically denied that any charge which has been applied to the claimants acc with LFCL was applied pursuant to a term of an agreement which is unenforceable, whether under statute or common law
   
7. it is denied that the charges are in the nature of a penalty or intended to compensate LFCL for losses; all charges applied to the account correspond to breaches by the claimant of her contract with LFCL and/or failures by the claimant to pay the sums to LFCL as they fell due, and in each case to the attempts on LFCL's part to draw these breaches of contract and failures to the claimants notice. The charges are remuneration for services provided to the claimant and received by her, which services were of benefit to her
   
8. It is submitted that the claimant has failed to properly particularise her claim, inasmuch as she fails to specify what agreement (s) are claimed to contain unenforceable terms, or to specify the terms (s) which are claimed to be unenforceable
   
9. For the purpose of this defence, it is assumed that the claimant asserts that any tern in any agreement between the claimant and LFCL which permits the application of these allegedly unenforceable terms as the ?unspecified terms?
   
10. The claimant asserts that the unspecified terms are unenforceable at common law but states no basis for this assertion
    
11. For the avoidance of doubt, it is specifically denied that the unspecified terms are unenforceable at common law
    
12. The claimant asserts that the unspecified terms are unenforceable by reason if the unfair contact terms act 177 (hereinafter ?UCTA?) but states no basis for this assertion
    
13. For the avoidance of doubt, it is specifically denied that the unspecified terms are unenforceable by reason of UCTA . It is submitted that UCTA applies only to the contract terms which exclude or restrict liability, and it is specifically denied that the unspecified terms operate to do either
    
14. The claimant is put to strict proof as to factual application of UCTA to the unspecified terms
    
15. it is denied that S15 of the supply of goods & services act 1982 (herinafter the ?1982 Act?) is applicable to the unspecified terms, inasmuch as the consideration for the services provided to the claimant is specified. It is specifically denied that notwithstanding the non-applicability of the 1982 Act to the unspecified terms, the charges levied pursuant to the unspecified terms are other than reasonable
    
16. It is specifically denied that the unspecified terms are unenforceable under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 (herinafter ?UTCCR?)
    
17. It is denied that the unspecified term is ?unfair? within the meaning of UTCCR regulation 5(1) in that it does not cause a significant imbalance in the parties rights & obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
    
18. the claimant is put to strict proof of the factual existence of such imbalance and/or detriment
    
19. If and to the extent that, which is denied, that the unspecified terms are 'unfair' within the meaning of UTCCR, it is submitted that UTCCR is not applicable inas much as the unspecified terms relate to " .... the adewuacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange" as set out in reg 6 (2) (a) of UTCCR
    
20. the unspecified terms relate to the remuneration of LFCL for providing services to the claimant in specified circumstances. In particular it is submitted that the claimant has agreed to the unspecified terms which set our specified sums to be paid for specified instances of such service and that as such UTCCT is not applicable for services supplied
    
21. It is submitted that , in so far as it is applicable to these facts, the decision in Director general of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc (2001) UKHL 51 may be completely distinguished on the basis that the unspecified term is directly concerned (and in fact specifies) the level of remuneration for specified services
    
22. If and to the extent that it is found that the unspecified terms are ?unfair? (which for the avoidance of doubt is not accepted), but it is accepted that they fall within UTCCR Reg 6 (2) (a), and that on this basis UTCCR is not generally applicable, it is specifically denied that the unspecified terms are other than in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of UTCCR Regs 6 (2) and 7
    
23. The claimant is put to strict proof of any allegation that the unspecified terms are ?unfair? and that either they do not fall within UTCCR Reculation 6 (2) (a), or that they do so fall but are not in plain intelliigible language within the meaning of UTCCR regs 6 (2) and 7, it is submitted that, whilst the unspecified terms are to that extent only not binding on the claimant persuant to UTCCR Reg 8, the claimant has nonetheless acted on the basis that they are binding and has made payments to LFCL in respect of sums due under the specified terms. LFCL has acted in reliance on these actions of the claimants, and the claimant should therefore be estopped (??) from now seeking to recover sums paid to LFCL pursuant to the unspecified terms

PHEW!!!! COR ... Anyone make sense of that lot?!?!? Loadsa repetative stuff there don't u think! Think I need a drink after typing that lot ... comments anyone .....

 

Bookie are you about ... ?

[bill-k]

You're right, Chez. We need Bookie for this !!

 

FWIW, the little run-in I had with Littlewoods a coupla years back was centred on their refusal to pay Mrs K's commission unless she signed a new agreement with the new firm that Littlewoods had become. We refused on principle. Main thrust was that the commission was earned under the former agreement and any new agreement was a separate matter. Won, plus misc charges., but had to issue a claim first. Can you remember signing a new agreement with them? That is what all this stuff in para. 2 is about, I think.

 

In paras 3 & 4, they seem to be implying that, as you hadn't specified WHICH Littlewoods you were suing, that they could literally lead you a merry dance. I think you might need to identify WHICH Littlewoods you are suing. If you did sign a new agreement, then I reckon these charges were imposed by the original Littlewoods. If not, then by whoever your agreement is with.

 

It certainly looks as though the main thrust of their defence is that you failed to be precise enough in your particulars (para. 8 ). So they're playing the "clever buggers" card, eh ? It seems to me that, as a Personal Litigant, you have a Joker in your hand, and that might be the key. Their "clever buggers" defence seems to reinforce the possibility of "concealment."

 

...and para. 23 seems to invite Standard Disclosure to me !!!!

 

Bookie !..................BOOKIE !!...................!!!!

[chezt]

"Yoooo hooo Bookie Merry Xmas & a Happy New Year n C'mon ava look at this Peerrrlleeeasse!"

 

[Bookworm]

Ok, ok, I'm here, jeez, can't you lot play on your own for a bit?

 

1. the claim is denied in it's entirety - Bugger off, you're getting nothing.
   
2. the claim for fails to properly identify the defendant which is referred to simply as 'Littlewoods'. For the avoidance of doubt this defence is filed on behalf of Littlewoods Shop Direct Home Shopping Limited (LSHDHSL) and Littlewoods Finance Company (LFCL) - Yes, thank you.
   
3. It is admitted that the claimant has purchased goods from LSDHSL by means of a credit account provided by LFCL with account number XXXXX - They're the defendants, they're simply agreeing that there was an account from which you bought stuff.
   
4. It is specifically denided that LSDHSL has applied any charges to the claimants account with LFCL - See 5, methinks they've got themselves confused here.
   
5. It is admitted that LFCL has applied admin charges to the claimants account - See 4... Surely,"admin" charge comes under "any" charge? Oh dear...
   
6. It is specifically denied that any charge which has been applied to the claimants acc with LFCL was applied pursuant to a term of an agreement which is unenforceable, whether under statute or common law - They're saying the agreement is lawful.
   
7. it is denied that the charges are in the nature of a penalty or intended to compensate LFCL for losses; all charges applied to the account correspond to breaches by the claimant of her contract with LFCL and/or failures by the claimant to pay the sums to LFCL as they fell due, and in each case to the attempts on LFCL's part to draw these breaches of contract and failures to the claimants notice. The charges are remuneration for services provided to the claimant and received by her, which services were of benefit to her - They're saying they charged you for a service, so it doesn't have to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and is therefore not a penalty. It should be interesting to get them to identify which was the part that was supposed to be for YOUR benefit!
   
8. It is submitted that the claimant has failed to properly particularise her claim, inasmuch as she fails to specify what agreement (s) are claimed to contain unenforceable terms, or to specify the terms (s) which are claimed to be unenforceable - This one is a bit odd, as one would expect them to use that as an argument to get your claim stricken off, yet they don't, and proceed to "assume" that you mean the following, thereby offering a defence to a claim you have -allegedly- failed to specify, eg UCTA, UTCCR, SOGSA (this covers it al up to #17):
   
9. For the purpose of this defence, it is assumed that the claimant asserts that any tern in any agreement between the claimant and LFCL which permits the application of these allegedly unenforceable terms as the ?unspecified terms?
   
10. The claimant asserts that the unspecified terms are unenforceable at common law but states no basis for this assertion
    
11. For the avoidance of doubt, it is specifically denied that the unspecified terms are unenforceable at common law
    
12. The claimant asserts that the unspecified terms are unenforceable by reason if the unfair contact terms act 177 (hereinafter ?UCTA?) but states no basis for this assertion
    
13. For the avoidance of doubt, it is specifically denied that the unspecified terms are unenforceable by reason of UCTA . It is submitted that UCTA applies only to the contract terms which exclude or restrict liability, and it is specifically denied that the unspecified terms operate to do either
    
14. The claimant is put to strict proof as to factual application of UCTA to the unspecified terms
    
15. it is denied that S15 of the supply of goods & services act 1982 (herinafter the ?1982 Act?) is applicable to the unspecified terms, inasmuch as the consideration for the services provided to the claimant is specified. It is specifically denied that notwithstanding the non-applicability of the 1982 Act to the unspecified terms, the charges levied pursuant to the unspecified terms are other than reasonable
    
16. It is specifically denied that the unspecified terms are unenforceable under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 (herinafter ?UTCCR?)
    
17. It is denied that the unspecified term is ?unfair? within the meaning of UTCCR regulation 5(1) in that it does not cause a significant imbalance in the parties rights & obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
    
18. the claimant is put to strict proof of the factual existence of such imbalance and/or detriment - You'll have to show for a fact that their charging you big sums of money for late payments unilaterally is being an unfair/detrimental term. Nothing unusual there.
    
19. If and to the extent that, which is denied, that the unspecified terms are 'unfair' within the meaning of UTCCR, it is submitted that UTCCR is not applicable inas much as the unspecified terms relate to " .... the adewuacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange" as set out in reg 6 (2) (a) of UTCCR
    
20. the unspecified terms relate to the remuneration of LFCL for providing services to the claimant in specified circumstances. In particular it is submitted that the claimant has agreed to the unspecified terms which set our specified sums to be paid for specified instances of such service and that as such UTCCT is not applicable for services supplied - both 19 & 20 relate to the "service" argument. If it is a service provided, then UTCCR does not apply: They can charge what they want for a service (ATM charge for a bank, for example)
    
21. It is submitted that , in so far as it is applicable to these facts, the decision in Director general of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc (2001) UKHL 51 may be completely distinguished on the basis that the unspecified term is directly concerned (and in fact specifies) the level of remuneration for specified services I have no idea what they're talking about, sorry.
    
22. If and to the extent that it is found that the unspecified terms are ?unfair? (which for the avoidance of doubt is not accepted), but it is accepted that they fall within UTCCR Reg 6 (2) (a), and that on this basis UTCCR is not generally applicable, it is specifically denied that the unspecified terms are other than in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of UTCCR Regs 6 (2) and 7 - Refers to plain English, which I would have thought is irrelevant, I don't think you said anywhere that their T&Cs were unintelligible, did you? They're really trying to cover all bases here...
    
23. The claimant is put to strict proof of any allegation that the unspecified terms are ?unfair? and that either they do not fall within UTCCR Reculation 6 (2) (a), or that they do so fall but are not in plain intelliigible language within the meaning of UTCCR regs 6 (2) and 7, it is submitted that, whilst the unspecified terms are to that extent only not binding on the claimant persuant to UTCCR Reg 8, the claimant has nonetheless acted on the basis that they are binding and has made payments to LFCL in respect of sums due under the specified terms. LFCL has acted in reliance on these actions of the claimants, and the claimant should therefore be estopped (??) from now seeking to recover sums paid to LFCL pursuant to the unspecified terms - Our terms are not unfair or incomprehensible, besides,you agreed to them and you made payments before, which shows that you agreed to them, and therefore since you paid them before, you can not try and recover them now.

And there you have it. In summary, they are trying to say that the charges applied to your acount were for a service, not a penalty, and therefore all of your claim doesn't apply, as they can charge what they want for a service. They don't say what the service is. Funny, that.

 

Incidentally, the Littlewoods website T&Cs says:

3. Key Information

 

3.1 Default Charges - Charges are payable by the customer in respect of the following matters:

• The customer going into payment arrears
  
• Failure of the customer to respond to an arrears collection communication
  
• Any dishonoured cheque or missed direct debit payment by the customer
  
• The creditor agreeing to a reduced payment schedule with the customer
  
• Transfer of the customer's debt to a debt collection agency
  
• Failure of the customer to provide a forwarding address to the creditor
  
• Any court costs and fees incurred by the creditor in pursuit of arrears

 

So I'm thinking they're going to have a hard time convincing a judge that it is a service. If it smells like a penalty, acts like one, barks like one, you can call it what you like, it will still bite you like one. ;-)

[Sparkie1723]

Hi chetz,

and all u taking on Littlewoods and gettin no reply, thats probably because they are too busy taking me on, I'm just waiting for a court date I,ve had the allocation hearing, I, m taking them to court under the data prtection act, Section 40 of the Administraion of Justice Act and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, my case is over a £74 debt that wasnt I've never had a thing off Littlewoods I dont even do their Football pools, they entered a default on my credit files for 4 years & blocked me opening a bank account refused to take it off until the legal dept of Equifax Cra made them, they used 4 different debt collectors for over 4 years and, am I going to make them pay UBetcha! I am

One debt collectors was not registered as data processor untill 2004 they chased me in 2002 & 2003 thats wrongfull pursuit of a debt.

So if anyone was chased by Littlewoods any time before 2004 by Scotcall debt recovery services when they were owned by Sheildaig enterprises they've got a case they can sue Littlewoods uner the same acts , check it out

 

Sparkie 1723

[chezt]

Ok, ok, I'm here, jeez, can't you lot play on your own for a bit? .

Nah ... u know what happens when you leave us alone for too long!

 

So I'm thinking they're going to have a hard time convincing a judge that it is a service. If it smells like a penalty, acts like one, barks like one, you can call it what you like, it will still bite you like one. ;-)

 

Thanks for the reply Bookie ... seems a lot clearer now with your fab explanations! ... just gotta go work on the AQ now ... *eyes fog over again!* GULP!

[chezt]

Had a default notice now so gonna send this letter ...

 

Nationwide Debt Recovery on behalf of Littlewoods Finance Company Limited

PO Box 55

Liverpool

L2 2ST

 

29th December 2006

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER xxxx

 

I am in receipt of your recent letters regarding default notices relating to the above account. You should be aware by now that this account is currently in dispute and you have received several items of correspondence from myself confirming this.

 

Please ensure that no further action is taken with regards to this account as I presume you should be well aware that as a financial institution governed by Banking Code Standards, youare unable to default an account which is in dispute. Nationwide Debt Recovery and Littlewoods Finance Company are therefore in danger of breaking Section 13.6 of the Banking Code where it states that a financial institution may only pass on details of debts to the Credit Reference Agencies if the debts are not in dispute. May I also draw your attention to a recent Banking Code Standards Board bulletin (issue no 21) where it highlights the issue of account closures due to claims regarding unfair charges.

 

If you have already entered a default on my file then I request that you take action immediately to remove this. This entry should be totally removed and an amendment will not be acceptable.

 

I have already commenced court proceedings against Littlewoods in relation to my dispute and I will be drawing the Judges' attention to the fact that the defaulted amount is an inaccurate reflection of the debt owed as it is partly made up of unlawful charges and therefore I will be requesting an order for the default to be removed.

 

I trust this clarifies the situation.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

chezt

 

Comments anyone ... ?

[Bookworm]

Yeah, but I don't think you're gonna like it.

 

I don't think you can use that letter... L/woods are not a bank, they therefore do not have to abide by the banking code (which is oly a voluntary one anyway, and therefore worth about as much as used toilet paper) and neither do their DCA.

 

Happy to be corrected if someone knows better, by the way!

[bill-k]

Yo, Chez - I been there 'n' dun that !! We get so carried away with our other claims, we forget who we're squaring up against !! Good for Bookie for clarifying that !!!

 

I guess we're gonna have to refer to the CCA's here, aren't we ?

 

Er.....Bookie ?

 

No. Mustn't pester her too much. better read up other threads to see what's what, first. Must admit - apart from my earlier skirmish with 'em, I can't help here with factuals. But get some half-decent relevant clauses together, and they'll fold, I'm sure, matey !!

[chezt]

Yeah, but I don't think you're gonna like it.

 

I don't think you can use that letter... L/woods are not a bank, they therefore do not have to abide by the banking code (which is oly a voluntary one anyway, and therefore worth about as much as used toilet paper) and neither do their DCA.

 

Happy to be corrected if someone knows better, by the way!

 

 

Aww bugga! Thanks Bookie - knew I could rely on you ... will as Bill says have a scoot around the forums n see if I can find owt more useful to chuck at 'em! Surely there must be summat somewhere along the same rules about defaulting an account in query?

[bill-k]

Sorry I can't help much here, Chez. I dunno if Willowb can help - she's done a lot of this stuff, I think. Haven't seen her around, lately, tho.

[chezt]

Sorry I can't help much here, Chez. I dunno if Willowb can help - she's done a lot of this stuff, I think. Haven't seen her around, lately, tho.

 

Hey Bill - Willow 'popped up' in one of my other threads so I've asked her to 'call by!'!!

[chezt]

Hi chetz,

and all u taking on Littlewoods and gettin no reply, thats probably because they are too busy taking me on, .... Sparkie 1723

 

Good luck Sparkie ... just tell Littlewoods to send me my cheque then while ur there will you! mine is Littlewoods catalogue I'm claiming against

[chezt]

OK quick Q ... This claim has been transferred to a local court but where I live there are 2 near me & I would prefer to go to the other one as I know the area more ... do you think it would be acceptable to ask for the location of the hearing to be transferred or will this be deemed as being a bit petty?

[bill-k]

OK quick Q ... This claim has been transferred to a local court but where I live there are 2 near me & I would prefer to go to the other one as I know the area more ... do you think it would be acceptable to ask for the location of the hearing to be transferred or will this be deemed as being a bit petty?

Seems no harm in asking, Chez, I guess - but really - think about it - are they gonna go that far, anyway ??

 

Might be best to let it lie.

[martinhw]

What is the case if my Wife placed an order online and filled an account application in online for Littlewoods Catalog? She has also never signed any agreement etc? They sent the goods, and she has had this "Account" for a while now... about 4 years she thinks.

[bill-k]

LW tried to force Mrs K to sign a new agreement with them a few years back. Are you sure they didn't do that to you ?

 

If not, then it sounds like they don't have a contract !!!

[chezt]

Seems no harm in asking, Chez, I guess - but really - think about it - are they gonna go that far, anyway ??

 

Might be best to let it lie.

 

Yeah ur probably right Bill - think I'll leave as is then ... Take my chances!

[chezt]

update ... AQ posted today with the FANTASTIC help n advice from this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires.html

 

garyH ... SUPERSTAR!!

 

Also, I rang the courts & explained the last date for filing was Monday & I was concerned with Royal Mail's performance that it wouldn't get there by then although I was sending 1st class recorded. Very helpful & said they don't usually do them on Monday's anyway but has added on an extra day to be sure ... I said I would track the delivery online & if it didn't show as del'd i would call them (will prob call anyway to check they hve it TBH!)

 

Gonna post a copy to Littleoods also (just to be courtious!) Just waiting for an answer as to if this should go direct to them or their solicitor (posted Q on above thread)

 

So here we go ... tick tick tick!!

[bill-k]

Well done, Chez - I'll be coming to you for advice soon, as I haven't done AQ, yet, and I have a couple now. Time to return some of those kind clicks at last, methinks !!

 

I'm pretty sure that, if you have been getting corre from their solicitors, then you stay in that vein until told otherwise. Littlewoods are in-house anyway, I think, so it doesn't matter too much, I shouldn't think.

[Guest willowb]

Hi Chezt, sorry it's taken so long to get here.....I've been in the thick of a battlefield at home......a war of germs! GOD! can I not go out of the door for one day without a trail of snot being wiped all over my jumper??:-|

 

Anyway, you don't need me to tell you that BW is indeed correct about 'the banking code' not referring to Littlewoods, same as for Vodafone etc etc. BUT have you thought about sending them a statutory notice?

 

I'm really unclear (sorry, 2nd glass of wine!) as to why you think you won't get the default removed along with your charges refunded? I probably do know as I have read it all but am getting all muddled again! lol......all you have to do is simply demand that they remove the default or you'll be in Court and in Court you can certainly ask the Judge to order it removed as the origional defaulted amount was an unfair reflection of the actual debt considering it is partially/totally made up of unlawful charges (and they are unlawful....however they have chosen to 'dress them up'). They won't go to Court imo so for them to avoid it they'll have to remove the default notice.......if there is something that I've missed then here's the SN you can send......SurlyBond's template......

 

Statutory Notice pursuant to Sections 10 and 12

 

 

 

of The Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Data Subject Notice

 

 

 

 

To: The Data Controller

GrabItAll Bank plc

Large Ugly Building

Somewhere in London SomePostalCode

[replace with registered company address]

 

 

Data Subject: [your title and full name]

 

 

Address: [your full postal address inc. postcode]

 

Whereas I have been a customer of x Bank plc and whereas I consented in my contract with you to the disclosure by you of certain data to third parties, at no time did I consent and neither was it within the contemplation of the parties to the contract that I did consent to the processing by you of that data in any manner which would be unfair or inaccurate or which in any way would breach The Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Therefore, take notice that I require that you cease from processing within twenty one days of the receipt by you of this Notice, or else that you do not begin to process any personal data of which I am the subject insofar as that processing involves the communication or passing of personal data of which I am the subject to any third party and insofar as the said data relates wholly or in part to the implementation by you of alleged defaults or contractual breaches or breaches contrary to The Common Law.

 

This Notice is given on the grounds that the processing or continued processing by you of the said data will be likely to affect my credit rating and my reputation and cause substantial damage and/or substantial distress to me and my family members in addition to that which has been caused to date. And that as the processing of the said data in the way referred to in this Notice would violate both the Principles and Data Subject’s rights of The Data Protection Act 1998, to do so would be both unwarranted and unlawful.

 

Signed

 

 

[sign it in pen]

 

 

[put your title, initials and surname]

Dated this [something -th] day of [month], in the year two thousand and [year].

If they do not respond satisfactorily to this notice within the 21 days stipulated then you can file a claim on these grounds to request the Judge to order the default be removed from your file.

Or, amend your existing POCs to include the non-compliance with the Stat Not......but now I'm confused again as to why you would have to do that if you are claiming for charges.........................brain is fryed............another glass of Chablis;) (christmas pressie) for me!

Wxxxxx

[chezt]

Or, amend your existing POCs to include the non-compliance with the Stat Not......but now I'm confused again as to why you would have to do that if you are claiming for charges.........................brain is fryed............another glass of Chablis;) (christmas pressie) for me!

 

Wxxxxx

 

Hey fancy comin on my thread all drunk n disorderly!! (ok then ... just drunk!) Sorry to hear u n urs are all snotty ... been the same in my house too but hopefully it's ended now! Don't hink I know anyone who isn't or hasn't been a bit snotty lately tbh!

 

This is already in court so can't amend POC ... Hopefully the letter alone will do the trick but spose I could always ask the judge to deal with it IF it goes that far ... if not then spose it'll have to be a seperate argument eh!

 

Oh n the only reason I wasn't sure about getting a default halted on a disputed account of this sort is that the only letters n discussions I've seen around are for banks ... thats all ... I thought there musta been a 'right' against OI too as I thought it wrong also to send incorrect info & thought there must be some law or other in place to protect us meer mortals!

 

so this letter is DEFFO ok to use for other financial institutions then, not just banks?

 

THANKS MUCHLY! (again! )

[Guest willowb]

lol read it again tm!

 

night night

 

Wxxxx

[chezt]

Well done, Chez - I'll be coming to you for advice soon, as I haven't done AQ, yet, and I have a couple now. Time to return some of those kind clicks at last, methinks !!

 

I'm pretty sure that, if you have been getting corre from their solicitors, then you stay in that vein until told otherwise. Littlewoods are in-house anyway, I think, so it doesn't matter too much, I shouldn't think.

 

Hey tell u what, it's amazing how much clearer stuff becomes & how quickly u get to understand when u get to it ... espesh when u come across really helpful peeps who explain stuff in plain english ... BIG thanks to garyh AGAIN for his explanation of the process in the new AQ thread I posted above and Bookie for explaining Littlewoods defence ... I went from this :o to this in a matter of a quick read!!!

 

Will DEFFO help u matey if/when u need it

[Guest willowb]

I thought there musta been a 'right' against OI too as I thought it wrong also to send incorrect info & thought there must be some law or other in place to protect us meer mortals!

 

Apparantly it's called The Data Protection Act!

 

here.....

(section) 14. - (1) If a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data of which the applicant is the subject are inaccurate, the court may order the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy those data and any other personal data in respect of which he is the data controller and which contain an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data.

 

The data (the total amount in debt defaulted) was inaccurate, therefore you can request the Judge to order it to be removed. As for banking codes etc, they don't apply....concentrate on this argument in your letter, re-work it and post it again.

 

Wxxxx