Niddy v CapQuest

[Never-In-Doubt]

Morning All,

Well seems that we're now into year 6 - all the DCA's from the past are trying to make contact again, unfortunately for them - last time I communicated was in 2009 at which point I threatened a charge of £25 per letter which I am now invoking as a result of their inability to deal with a simple request to disassociate my address with the incorrect linked address.

If you read their letter then closely read mine, you'll see it's quite amusing - luckily this debt isn't mine so I will mess with their heads and play silly buggers, why not - see how they like it!

Enjoy - will keep you all posted!

Correspondence Received 11th July 2011


My reply of 12th July 2011

Dear CrapQuest,

Ref: DPXXXXXXXX - £7,029.06

Dear Sirs,

You have contacted me regarding some random debt, which you claim is owed by myself. I would point out that I have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to CrapQuest [sic] nor to Solutions Finance. Before I explain, in great detail, the facts; I’d like to start by drawing your attention to a few points, and request you address them in order, being you were the idiots that were stupid enough to print them in the first place:

• You start by saying this correspondence is to inform me that my visa account….
  I do not have such an account! Maybe in future you’d do well recognising the OFT Guidance on debt collection which does clearly state that you should not be sending such demands unless you are the certain it is the person in question. The fact I have a CIFAS Registration and corrective text showing all over my credit files is enough of a hint that something ‘just aint right’, wouldn’t you agree?
  
  
• You then go on some religious spiel about your aims and your experienced team of negotiators….
  Can you please provide me details of your companies’ vision, mission and goals so I can interpret these within some of your other letters just so I can see for myself what your real aim is – you are aware you’re all over the internet right? Maybe try a simple Google search with the criteria “CrapQuest Threats” and you’ll see what I mean. Additionally, your claim that you have experienced negotiators is way off the mark and I strongly suggest you consider rephrasing this to read ‘Our amateur bullies’; which is, what we both know, to be the real truth. I have ample proof, in my capacity as a consumer debt forum owner and have personally written you hundreds of threats over the years on behalf of consumers you’ve tried to con with your bully-boy tactics. It’s just unfortunate for you that you’ve actually directly made contact because now I intend to utilise the law to its full advantage to make you suffer.
  
  
• You then go on to say this matter will not go away….
  Would you like to take bets on that? I guarantee you this will just go away and for your threatening letter, plus the time to compile a response, you’ve now also been hit with a reverse charge – more on this will follow.
  
  
• I love this paragraph – Please, be my guest and utilise the legal system to its full extent – I would love to see the judges face when I defend all the claim and issue a counterclaim based on the fact you’re chasing the wrong person. Do you also know that you have certain responsibilities to adhere to prior to issuing these silly, meaningless legal threats? Just who do you think you are? You are not a judge and so have no right whatsoever to issue such random threats – however for the record, this response is most definitely a legal threat to you – back down, pay up and pissoff. I am not joking here.
  
  
• I fully intend to respond by 21st July; now being your letter is dated 8th July and today is the 12th July, I also expect you to do the same and therefore respond to this, answering each point in turn by the 25th, which is the same 13 days (9 working days) you gave me! Failure to respond will result in legal action for libel and harassment being sought against CrapQuest.
  
  
• Legal action will indeed increase the amount you’ll end up owing me, so I draw your attention to your own statement as you’d better take heed – trust me here, I am not messing around.
  
  
• No contact will mean further action by me, I will start with a complaint to the MoJ and the FOS regards your suitability to retain your consumer credit licence, followed with a complaint to the ICO regards your incorrect usage of the wrong persons data thus linking an incorrect address to mine and I will finally issue a summons for compensation plus all costs of my legal team and time spent fighting you.
  

The Facts
I have been the victim of ID Fraud in the past and the CIFAS Registration plus the notice of correction text on all my credit files should be enough to clarify that for you, however you have a slight problem – I have no connection to you nor to the company that you claim I owe money to – meaning you do not have any right to go and search me! If, for whatever reason, I find out that you have then I’ll have you in court quicker than your feet can touch the ground. I can only presume that these debts are related to the INCORRECT link on my Equifax file, i.e. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX? If so then tread very carefully, I have so far sued 3 lenders and the credit agencies over this fiasco - for the record, I have never lived at that address. I presume you were unaware of my previous addresses otherwise you’d not have wasted time writing to me would you?

However, whatever you do, do not underestimate who you are dealing with here. Not only am I an expert on the consumer credit act and associated guidance, I am also extremely familiar with the CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection, which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question. The OFT also say that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable and in not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are deemed to be using deceptive and unfair methods. Furthermore ignoring and disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical & psychological harassment. I would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my liability for the debt in question and await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to Trading Standards and also inform the Office of Fair Trading of your actions notwithstanding possible legal action unless you stop bugging me about this nonsense. Just how you got my address and came to the conclusion that I have debt amazes me – I guess if I'm lucky enough to have you in Leeds County Court you’ll soon see what a massive mess you’ve made of all this!

As a result of your continual harassment and as a result of my previous letter to you dated 16 March 2009 regards a different account (same circumstances, different account) I now formally invoke my previously notified fees which, for the record, are £25 per letter. This is not the first time we’ve communicated - my letter from March 2009 did indeed involve another account but I made it quite clear at the time that any further correspondence to me relating to this incorrect linked address would result in a £25 administration charge being applied to each response necessary by me. I expect a cheque to the value of £25 plus a reasonable offer of compensation for your continual harassment; to be made within the time frame given, which for clarity is 13 days from the date of this letter (25th July) prior to my utilising the court system against you, which I fully intend to claim all expenses plus seek judgment against you.

I strongly urge you to check your file notes regard to MY CURRENT ADDRESS and you may well find a copy of my letter, however based on my knowledge of your systems and filing; I very much doubt you’ll have kept a copy. I guess that serves you right and I truly hope it comes back to bite you extremely hard on the arse!

Do not ignore this letter; this debt (£25 plus an offer of compensation) will NOT go away.

Notice the use of CAPITALISED and BOLD font? Does it make my letter look more intimidating or more childish would you say? I’ll leave this in your incapable hands and await your response with baited breath – please give me a reason to drag your sorry arse through the court system – I’m begging you!

Yours faithfully




Niddy

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy's Reason for Being here!

Update 15th July 2011

This gets even better!! Got another letter from crapquest chasing a staggering £14k to skycard!!!

But the funny thing is they've went to HL Legal who have said in 7 days they're going to get a charging order!! Really? Wow, I can't wait to see that happen considering the house is all in Mrs Niddy name - not mine

Oh it gets better! I've still got their letter from 2009 apologising and promising to remove the info -

I'm gonna wipe the fookin floor with these clowns!!!!!

More tomorrow, I'm struggling to type cos I'm pissing myself so much

[Never-In-Doubt]

Update 15th July 2011

Update 15th July 2011

This gets even better!! Got another letter from crapquest chasing a staggering £14k to skycard!!!

Ok, here is the latest installment of problems - came home yesterday to find a couple of letters waiting for me - as shown below...



My reply to this - Can be found below

Dear Sirs,

Further to my letter dated 12 July 2011 (copy attached); it appears you’ve sent others thus meaning we’re going to have a cross-over of post; that said, I am now formally reporting you to the regulatory bodies for your clear breaches.

Irrespective that you’ve probably not had a chance to deal with my last letter, because attached with this bundle is a copy of your letter to me dated 06 August 2009 whereby you confirm no link or letters will be sent to me again, yet here you are 2 years later acting like the idiots you are. What is so difficult in doing what you say you will do, if incapable then invest in some cross referencing software – I can build you some if you’re a bit strapped for cash?

Now, back onto the serious matter of your blatant harassment and inability to check a debtors whereabouts, your inability to sustain a promise that is only 2 years old, your lack of diligence and most importantly your breaches of the OFT guidance of debt collection. I am sick of this nonsense, how dare you get your part-time pooch; HL Legal (herein called bully-arseholes) onto me when you were not even sure that I was the person responsible for the debt? You had no right and I will seek to punish you BOTH for your blatant bully-boy tactics and underhand methods. How dare the bully-arseholes threaten me with a warrant of execution? Obviously they have NO idea just who they are messing with! Do you even know what a warrant of execution is or does? I hardly suspect so otherwise you’d never have agreed to use that wording in your template collection.

Idiots, you really are a bunch of part time idiots which, given the scary prospect of you having 2 brain cells to rub together, you’d be dangerous. I am serious here, just what do I need to do to make you remove all trace of the person you seek against me? It’s not rocket science now is it? If you are really struggling then my daily rate is £750 which I’ll be pleased to rent to you in exchange for providing you a more sustainable and diligent system – it’d take me less than an hour to complete but I charge by the day, because I can and because I want to.

On the note of charging, you may recall from my letter to you in March 2009; I stated that any further letters that were replied to would be charged at my standard rate of £25 per letter. This was invoked the moment you wrote to me bringing the dispute from dormant to live status again; ergo your invoice is attached to this bundle and my terms are 14 days prior to instructing my legal team to recover monies due along with costs. Believe me when I say I have no qualms in instructing court appointed bailiffs should you refuse to pay and I obtain judgment against you.

Now, to put things right you simply need to update your records, tell your bully-arseholes to pissoff, settle your outstanding debt with me and then contact the credit reference agencies and notify them that you are certain there should be no link between the two addresses and to de-link it. This will stop any future problems occurring in the future.

The above is not negotiable, you have a total of 14 days in which to respond prior to my taking legal action to recover my costs along with legal action for damages and consequential losses for the time, hassle and combined headache you’ve caused me.

I really do look forward to seeing what you got to say for yourself; however I will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you a full 14 days, unlike you or your bully-arseholes; in which to construct some sort of bull-story response; it’ll be funny to let our forum users read it!

Oh yea, did I forget to tell you we run a leading consumer debt forum? Shucks, my mistake – I thought you knew that you weren’t just dealing with Joe Bloggs from down the road…

Yours faithfully

[Never-In-Doubt]

Additional Proof - Update 15th July 2011

My reply to this - Can be found below

As part of the reply, I am also sending various items of proof - just to get rid of them cos I really can't be arsed and have better things to worry about right now - as detailed below...

* Note the first image is actually from CrapQuest back in 2009 confirming they'd removed my details - ermm, yea - sure you did












So, based on the above proof - do I think they'll back down and go away or do I think they'll take me to court by 21st July? Hmmm, let's think about this for a minute eh.....?



CrapQuest & HL Legal - this is a polite message for you in the only language you can understand - FUCKOFF AND LEAVE ME ALONE!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Schedule of Fees

Below is the schedule of fees that I sent to CapQuest:

Schedule of Charges & Fees

Applicable to CapQuest upon receipt of any correspondence

I may, from time to time at my discretion and for such period as I deem fit, by written notice to you:

(a) Vary the Charges under any part(s) of this Schedule and;
(b) Vary the wording under any part(s).

By writing to me, using the name and address detailed in the top right hand corner of this Schedule; you invoke acceptance to these terms and any applicable variation, as given in writing by me.

(a) You agree to pay me on demand all my reasonable costs together with all reasonable legal costs incurred by me in enforcing my rights under this Schedule;
(b) You agree to pay to me, on demand, my reasonable fees and administration charges, including any that have arisen out of any default by you under this Schedule, in accordance with the tariff shown below as varied by me from time to time.

Current charges (variable) are as follows:

• fee for writing to me, regards to any matter concerning the “Linked Address” - £12 (per instance/letter);
• fee for my responding to any matter concerning the “Linked Address” - £25 (per instance/letter);
• fee for any telephone calls received in respect of the “Linked Address” - £10 (per call received);
• fee for any telephone calls made in respect of the “Linked Address” - £15 (per call made);
• fee for any court action taken as a result of non-payment of my fees - £75 (+ all court costs);
• fee for any other type of communication regard to the “Linked Address” - £25 (per occasion);

Interest at the relevant Interest rate (statutory limit of 8%) will accrue on the Outstanding Balance after, as well as before, any judgment, until receipt of payment by me of the Outstanding Balance in full.

You agree that I may assign and/or transfer my rights and obligations under this Schedule provided that your rights against any person to whom I make such assignment or transfer remains the same (except as may be varied in accordance with this Schedule and applicable UK law). You agree that I may give financial or other information held about you to any such person. You may not assign or transfer any of your rights or obligations under this Schedule.

By writing to me, telephoning me or communicating with me in respect of anything relating to the incorrect “Linked Address” will otherwise invoke this Schedule and the fees as outlined above will become due and payable, within 14 days from the date you received my invoice.

Failure to settle within 28 days; after the expiry of the 14 day clause will result in additional legal costs being added to the balance, with statutory interest on the total debt charged at the rate of 8% per annum.

These terms are effective July 2009 and are specific between Niddy and CapQuest (Debt Recovery)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Invoice issued 18 July 2011

Invoice Issued - 18 July 2011

18 July 2011

Invoice No: 00001

This invoice is generated as a result of continual correspondence in accordance with my Schedule of Fees issued July 2009 to CapQuest (Debt Recovery) and applies as per the Schedule, as 14 days for remittance.

Type of Fee -- Cost

Letter Received (dated 8th July 2011) -- £12.00
Letter Received (dated 11th July 2011) -- £12.00
Letter Received (dated 12th July 2011) -- £12.00
Letter Sent (dated 12th July 2011) -- £25.00
Letter Sent (dated 18th July 2011) -- £25.00
Phone call Received (7th July, 11th July & 14th July) (£10 each x 3) -- £30.00
Phone call Made (14th July 2011) -- £15.00

TOTAL INVOICE -- £131.00

Terms – 14 days from 18 July 2011

If payment is not received in full by the given date of 1st August 2011 I will apply to the Small Claims Court for Judgment and any associated costs in line with my Schedule of Fees issued July 2009 and again July 2011.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy v CapQuest

Massive development with this one! I even managed to get in my little quote of: Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)

Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) [unreported]

Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.):

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.



Private Eye:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

[No further reply]

More later

[Never-In-Doubt]

Update 12 September 2011

Update 12 September 2011
In response to a silly letter received from CrapQuest; my reply is shown below in all it's glory. Yes, sorry - I know that it is long but they have made some pretty stupid errors and still think I lived somewhere that I never, even though historically they've confirmed they were wrong - yet the woman now dealing with this, thinks the original one was wrong ans she is right.

Obviously, she's barking up the wrong tree and has it all so wrong, but funnily enough she's giving me more and more ammunition to use against them. I will also upload the document referred to in my post regards to harassment, as the honourable Judge Nicholson has if you like, sorted my claim by way of this Judgment as it fits my circs to a tee....

Happy reading - yes, I was rather blunt, rude and obnoxious in my reply but I really really want them to take me to court only cos it adds to the embarrassment factor when I kick their arse, but I somehow suspect they'll pay me long before court - I can at any time kill this dead by sending my employment records in, which show my address and pay etc at the time, bit hard to run a business and live elsewhere - but hey, CrapQuest know best don't they

---------------------------------------------------------------

I write further to my letter dated 12 July 2011 and your response, dated 6th September 2011 (copy attached).

To keep abreast of things, I shall respond to the points of your letter first, then respond in free-flow at the end, so please do try and pay attention as this really is the last you’ll hear from me – all future correspondence will be served by my solicitor with a claim for all costs being in addition to the legal action for harassment that I may pursue.

• You start by declaring that there was incorrect information from Miss Slater’s response in 2009; based on your assumption that it is not due to an incorrect trace. Unfortunately I do have to tell you that you are in fact incorrect, Miss Slater’s response was spot on and for you to come out with such a blazing opening statement (yet again measuring ego’s no doubt), you will appreciate that my next point on this must be to demand proof. As you’re formally making such a declaration; a two-fold declaration nevertheless, I want proof of both statements made.
  
  As you’re no doubt aware, you cannot simply say “this is not a case of an incorrect trace” when you have the person you’re accusing telling you categorically that it is! Therefore, I put you to strict proof thereof and expect by way of return, physical proof of your declaration otherwise I expect a full apology confirming you are incorrect and you stand by Miss Slater’s earlier ‘correct’ decision.

• You state you are unable to view my credit report so are unable to comment regards my CIFAS query; yet further down you confirm that you’re writing to me based on information provided by the credit agencies – please make your mind up! Which is it to be then?

• Yes I am a consumer debt clued up type person that also runs a forum and varying other self-debt related websites. However, we do not offer advice; we simply teach consumers their rights in order to allow them to fight back against bullying by DCA’s. This is a prime example and I am only glad that this is myself, as I am so confident of victory that I plan to push things to the next level anyway, as you’ll see. However, I did request a copy of your companies vision, mission & goals and these were somewhat lacking in your response; the reason I asked for them was to see if you actually knew your own firms stance regards to compliance which your reply apparently confirms you do not. Your website does not provide such answers, otherwise I would not have asked for a copy.

• Regards to the extra info you think you’ve dug-up; the moment you wrote to me in 2011, YOU invoked the previous sleeping agreement that was clear enough and legalised by non dispute at the time. I sent a copy of my schedule of charges in 2009 with the clear term that if you contact me then you’ll be liable for the charges. You did contact me in 2011, several times in fact, and therefore trust me here, you will pay the charges – you may think you won’t but I think otherwise, more to follow. You then go on to say that you feel you’re trying to resolve this in an amicable manner; please then tell me why, since I initially wrote on 12th July, it’s taken a whole 2 months to get a response and in the meantime you’ve also sent no less than 5 other letters chasing these debts? Is that what you call trying to resolve matters amicably then is it? I wonder what a court would say about this. I refer you to the attached case judgment whereby Judge Nicholson clearly agrees with my trail of thought and I strongly suggest you reconsider your position on this as you will lose. There is no question of a doubt that you will lose – why am I so confident? Because I am not the person you seek! Quite a simple equation to fathom isn’t it? You wrote to me 2 years ago, I confirmed you had the wrong person, you then wrote confirming you’d removed my details, you’re now sitting here calling me a liar and saying you’re not paying my costs? Great, well as mentioned above, read the attached document entitled CQEG/1 and note the highlighted sections.

• With regard to your point IV, I will not get too drawn into this as none of it makes any sense to me whatsoever. I live with my 17 year old daughter. That it is. If you’re accusing me of being some sort of male whore then please be so direct and say so, but suffice to say I would know if I was ever lucky enough to have lived with so many women all at the same time. Unfortunately this is not the case and so your search for your male whore continues as you have the wrong one. As for the company and other comments, so what? I don’t care if that address bore a resemblance to my being part of the Royal Family, it is not me and has nothing to do with me so why you brought it up, also puzzles me. I have worked for the same PAYE employer for over 10 years, so if I am also a director then please tell me more so I can go get some dividend payments…?
  
  I think we can both see your mistake here, you’re relying on previous out of date information supplied to the credit agency and thus, as I do not live at the address in question, there is no link on MY credit file but there seems to be a link on the address section of the incorrect link, showing my address – something I have no control over as nobody will speak to me because I am not the account holder! If you cannot see this then you need retraining, but quite simply how can I fix something that has nothing to do with me? My address, as shown at the top of this letter, is my address. There are links to MY previous addresses however nothing links to the incorrect one. Thus, if the person that lives at that address does not tell the CRA’s to remove the link they will not – they will not listen to me as I am not that person!

• I did indeed state that I would consider legal action, however my solicitor advised it was best to await a response, as it shows the courts that I have tried – which you cannot accuse me of not doing, all I want is closure but you fools are too inept to do the most basic of functions that it becomes a drawn out saga no matter what. However, back to your point. You then go on to say (and I love this) “any legal action you take against CapQuest will be vigorously defended”. I am sure you already realise that you cannot vigorously defend anything, the correct word you’re looking for would have been ‘vehemently’ – however, pedant aside, yes you are liable and yes you will pay – as mentioned above, why? Because you legally accepted my terms the moment you continued with the harassment, why should I spend 30 hours a week writing to you about something that has nothing to do with me, and waste ink and postage? I shouldn’t have to, I won’t and yes you will pay me – there is a new statement attached as you’ve also sent me several other letters since the last invoices, I strongly suggest you pass this to your legal team as I not messing around here, I will have you in court quicker than your feet can touch the ground in which case, yes, you’re then likely to be ‘vigorously’ defending aren’t you?
  
  For the record, your silly threats to me have no legal standing but you seem to think it’s acceptable for you to go searching my name, looking at personal info about me and hassling me with unfounded chaser letters yet the moment I reverse this you don’t like it do you? Don’t think I just do this for the good of my health, I do not. I do it to assist me in court as a judge would take into account your behaviour and trust me; you’ve nothing solid because you have the wrong person! I have never held any accounts with Barclays, oh – maybe now is a good time to let you know they paid me compensation in April this year for their incorrect link of me to this address so maybe you ought to check with them before going any further as even Barclays themselves have confirmed I have never held an account with them. Will I send you a copy? Will I hell. Do your own bloody homework. Its ammunition to me. Each mistake you make will be pounced on and used against you, vigorously or otherwise.

• On to the phone conversation that I had with one of your alleged managers. First and foremost this was rather amusing to say the least, the fact that I rung and spoke to an extremely ignorant woman who thought she was above me demanding a name and reference all the while refusing to put me through to a manager, so I then said I was Steven from the FOS to which without any arguing, she transferred me. Does that not tell you something is wrong within your own organisation or do you think I was wrong to use your own dirty tricks of concealment, to get what I wanted, which was lets not forget, to speak to a manager – something you cannot legally refuse ANYONE that may ask. You comment about your manager trying to resolve the matter is a joke, you do know I recorded this whole thing and posted it on my forum don’t you? Well funny how over 30 people have told me they thought your manager was useless, rude and inept but you think he was trying to assist? Erm, whatever! You’ve already proved in point 1 how inaccurate you are so really you are in no position whatsoever to talk about the training needs of anyone else. But, because you have I feel it pertinent to push the matter. You say your manager was trying to assist, ok please tell me where it says that constantly interrupting a caller and not letting them speak, placing them on hold when they previously asked you not to, ignoring direct questions and again trying to over talk whilst all the time trying to keep up some kind of false pretence that he was trying to help – no he was not – that this kind of behaviour is acceptable? I bet it is nowhere to be found in any official training manuals otherwise we both know full well you would not have a Consumer Credit Licence, would you?

He was as obstinate and as ignorant as has been every other member of staff I have ever spoken to within your organisation. How dare you try and treat me as some thick idiot that does not know better, I used to manage over 4,000 staff in one go when I was employed within DWP and not once have I ever had such a complaint, if I did that member of staff would be out the door – as I said previously to you, you do not know me, that much is evident with the way you think I am some sort of male whore that runs a company and runs up debts, however the fact you then try and treat me as some sort of idiot is where I draw the line. You need to investigate the manager and the original bimbo that spoke to me and teach them customer service, not least before consideration of a full investigation into their behaviour. Oh, did you miss the killer comment from your manager? I’ll remind you then shall I? He said he put me on hold to speak to the trading’s manager before HE left work for the day. Later in the call he then referred to him as a HER. So tell me, is your trading’s manager a transsexual or some kind of two bodied monster that I ought to be aware of? If not, your manager is a liar – as I told him at the time. Again, how very dare you attempt to discredit me by this call? It is a fact that your staff are arseholes that have no respect for anyone outside their own self-indulgent illegal practice and any suggestion of the contrary will require proof, again something impossible for you to provide as a simple search in Google for “CapQuest complaints” (or even better try “CrapQuest being arseholes”) will show you the hundreds of thousands of pages that suggest we are not wrong, but in fact that you are.

Ok, now back to reality. I am not just ranting at you because I have nothing better to do, far from it actually. I am ranting at you because I am shocked that you can get away with this behaviour, especially as I have sent ample proof to suggest I am not the same person you’re looking for. Can’t you see that I want you to take me to court, I am begging you to? Then when we get there and I hand the Judge my paperwork showing my address and employment history you’ll be a little snookered to say the least. Even better, the fact that each company that has registered a debt against my namesake at the incorrect address has written to me confirming I am not the same person, yet here you are in your final paragraph asking for more proof. I therefore must respond in the only way that I think you will understand, that is to directly quote Arkell v. Pressdram (1971). To save you having to Google it, quite simply the quote is shown below;

“….. were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.”

Blunt? Maybe, however you have turned me into a bitter man that seeks justice any way he sees fit. Therefore you will get no more proof from me, I have sent ample. If you wish to take your chances by going to court; feel free – the sooner the better please. However be warned, I will not only counter sue, I will take you to the cleaners and ensure that every major newspaper and TV reporter is aware of this so they can all come and watch the fastest victory ever claimed. I suggest you spend some time reading my forum and you’ll see I have an extensive network of colleagues that I can fall on such as consumer affairs editors for major TV channels. You have been warned.

Now, back to the real issue of your unlawful harassment, vindication and consumption of my time, these are the real issues as far as I am concerned as I note you’re repeatedly breaking the law, so enough is now enough. I am taking this further UNLESS you sort this and remove my details and pay my invoice. The alternative will be a very easy court victory for me, again I refer you to the attached document labelled CQEG/1 which clearly outlines what the court considers harassment and you’ve done 10 times as bad as those Muppets that are Lowell so imagine my pay-out there – please, be my guest and refuse to pay my invoice so I can go the whole hog and dry your already dwindling bank account, please – I really am begging you to give me that one reason to take YOU to court.

So, based on the above we now move on to the matter of harassment; you’ve been told on numerous occasions that you have contacted the incorrect person. I also sent you adequate proof, even some letters that were still warm with ink; however you see fit to ignore these letters.

CQEG/1 is a copy of a case law whereby the Judge awarded damages to the client in respect of harassment by Lowell, as a result of fewer than 5 letters being sent. He was clear in his assessment when he stated

“… given the defendants response it takes not a lot, it seems to me, to put the claim on hold until those investigations came to fruition”

He then went on to say the following;

“… that did not happen and manifestly the defendant carried on sending its letters whilst investigating the problem”

“…even in the context of this claimant being as he is in my Judgment the persistence of the defendant is bound to have an effect even on the most hardened person, that goes well beyond annoyance, and well beyond the frustration of having to deal with the problem and that has to be reflected it seems to me in any award of damages”

He went on to award £1500 in damages. That’s right, over ten times the amount my invoices will generate, so think really hard before deciding on your next response.

The whole case is attached for your perusal. This will show you that even though I am hardened to such abuse, I will still be entitled to damages way and above the amounts claimed in my invoices. So, I ask you again; do you really want to take this through the courts? I do – as you can appreciate why.

I must also add the following from a very successful recent case that involves the same firm of solicitors I will appoint if I take action against you; this is taken from the Harrison v Link Financial case in which HH Judge Chambers outlined the predatory way in which the account holder was hounded; I quote, from this judgment;

"Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. I am satisfied that the Claimant’s description of the way that he was hounded by his creditors is essentially correct not least in the use of “non-traceable” telephone calls. It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt".

I suggest that the above also, similarly, falls in line with my own case insofar as you’re hounding me with letters that worse, have absolutely nothing to do with me whatsoever!

CQEG/2 is a copy of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance; I will not sit here and teach you to suck-eggs, as you should be able to recite each part back to me based on this being a condition of your CCL, however the points you are directly in breach of are listed, again more ammunition for my claim of harassment should I decide to take action;

The OFT guidance clearly states what is and what is not acceptable. To reiterate, the OFT practices that I deem you to be continually breaching, amongst others, include;

2.2

f. Contacting debtors at unreasonable times
g. Ignoring or disregarding debtors' legitimate wishes in respect of when and where to contact them, for example, shift workers who ask not to be telephoned during certain times of the day

2.4

b. Falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally cannot
e. Falsely implying or stating that failure to pay a debt is a criminal offence or that criminal proceedings will be brought

2.6

a. Contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals
c. Using more than one debt collection business at the same time resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties
d. Not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on as appropriate resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties
e. Not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a different debt collector
f. Pressurising debtors to pay in full, in unreasonably large instalments, or to increase payments when they are unable to do so
g. Making threatening statements or gestures
h. Ignoring and /or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

2.8

i. Failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued
k. Not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt

CQEG/3 is a copy of the CSA (Credit Service Association) guidelines on debt collection. I won’t quote much as these guys have no real powers, however a simple complaint to them with a copy to the OFT and to the Ministry of Justice may set some alarm bells ringing, don’t you think?

I am now formally placing you on notice to either provide evidence of all your wild and outrageous claims or to delete my name and address from your systems once and for all. It’s not rocket science, you have picked on the wrong person (in more than one way) and unless you comply, you’ll leave me no alternative but to formalise things meaning I will go to the OFT and the MoJ with a complaint also being sent to the FOS and ICO followed by legal action against you for any unpaid invoices and consideration of a full claim of harassment. Put simply, the amount you’ll end up owing me will more than quash the alleged debts that were never mine in the first place.

Do you really think I sound like the type of person that would kick up this entire stink if I actually lived somewhere that I say I never? Have you for one moment contemplated why I would consider doing such a thing when it is clear I understand the Acts and Laws that govern you to a T, so regardless I would be able to defeat you whether or not I did live there. I mean, in a way I wish I was the original debtor because then I’d start hitting you with totally different regulatory irregularities such as your evident Consumer Credit Act breaches, along with the real possibility and realisation these debts are actually Statute Barred in line with the Limitations Act (1980).

CQEG/4 is the revised schedule of fees. This is not negotiable, you will send me a cheque to the value outlined within 28 days otherwise my threat of legal action and formal complaints will be forthcoming, along with a chat with my TV producer friends to film the whole dirty mess as a one off special; such companies I will approach will be Watchdog, Chris Choi (ITN) and the makers behind Rip off Britain – all whom have shown an interest in our forum and want high profile cases to air on TV. Do you really want to be that company?

Oh, if you know a Bob Kingdon from 1st Credit, you may also want to speak to him regards to this, he has also accepted the fact he does not want his company name ruined – something I promise to do to CapQuest unless you fix things and fix them fast. 28 days is more than enough time to deal with this; in fact you only need one hour – read it, admit your error and authorise a cheque then respond saying you are sorry and I will walk away.

The alternative does not bear thinking about, in the nicest possible way, for CapQuest. I suggest you follow events of this on our forum; as I will ask several high profile names to come and view/reply to it affirming my position that I will win if I take this legal – we both know that so please don’t try playing games as I will not tolerate any more nonsense. Closure is the only option left open for you, now.

I have no inclination of calling you, and even if I wanted to, sending me a silly 0870 number to call is rather idiotic wouldn’t you say? You know I know your direct line, as I do with most desks at CapQuest so please just send the local number, to save me the time of posting them all on our forum.

Now what was that you said in point VI of your letter about “we will not be paying you…” – I somehow think that you will. You may consider an official level of compensation to be added to the total, so I do look forward to your offer of compensation, especially based on the realisation, you could be faced with much higher damages if I go legal with this.

Link to my thread is here: http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...ead.php?t=2963

Happy reading, I look forward to hearing from you ASAP. Do not delay things, time is not your friend right now, you abused that by taking over 8 weeks to respond to my initial letter; and as the honourable Judge Nicholson stated, it is not acceptable.

Yours faithfully

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy v CapQuest

Attached is the judgment referred to above:

lowell_judgment.pdf

I even managed to get in my little quote of: Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)

Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) [unreported]

Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.):

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

Private Eye:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

[No further reply]

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy v CapQuest

Invoice sent 12th September 2011:

12 September 2011

Invoice No: 00003


This invoice is generated as a result of continual correspondence in accordance with my Schedule of Fees issued July 2009 to CapQuest (Debt Recovery) and applies as per the Schedule, as 14 days for remittance, however this has been extended on payment for 28 days.

Type of Fee Cost

Letter Received (dated 5th August 2011) £12.00
Letter Received (dated 7th August 2011) £12.00
Letter Received (dated 12th August 2011) £12.00
Letter Received (dated 19th August 2011) £12.00
Letter Received (dated 23rd August 2011) £12.00

Letter Sent (dated 12th September 2011) £25.00
Phone call Made (17th August 2011) £15.00

TOTAL INVOICE £100.00

OUTSTANDING PREVIOUS INVOICE £131.00

TOTAL DUE WITHIN 28 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE £231.00


I also expect a suitable offer of compensation to be made for your illegal antics and pursuit of me, for a debt not liable to myself.

Terms – 28 days from 12 September 2011

[diddlydee]

Re: Niddy v CapQuest

That was some lovely light bedtime reading - cheers!!!!
Your "love letters" do make me laugh.....

Oh, and PS. As your case is being dealt with by a woman, you haven't a hope in hell of her saying "sorry"..... it's a woman thing

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Niddy v CapQuest

Thanks for the excellent read niddy, they really do think they are a law unto themselves.

What a bunch of

[jen_br]

Re: Niddy v CapQuest

LOL this is funny can't wait to see your check!

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Niddy v CapQuest

Ill bank the first public seat if this goes to court !!!!!!!!!!! now that would be something worth witnessing

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy v CapQuest

Ill bank the first public seat if this goes to court !!!!!!!!!!! now that would be something worth witnessing

Mate, it would be over before it began as I will happily show a Judge my previous address info, which confirms I was like 320 miles away for over 7 years when this started so unless I can magically be in London spending on one card and then spend on another in Yorkshire at the exact same time, then it aint me!

If this was anyone on here then i'd really feel for them cos this is such an awful place to be, as I say in my letter, the Judge Nicholson himself took note of the fact the claimant in that case was a trainee solicitor and a businessman yet he still felt for him and awarded £1500 in harassment monies - thing is I am not a trainee solicitor and only understand consumer credit related acts, not acts of law - thus I would also have a fookin humungous legal bill as I'd obviously let the legal team charge the top end of the scale and also waste a lot of hours doing unecessary work just to boost the overall sum claimed, all above board of course. ie no mates rates kinda thing!

So from my initial £131 claim, they're now looking at a minimum of say £500, with the risk of this multiplying into several thousands as I would also cost them £500 in FOS mediation fees plus I would seek a fine from OFT regards their abuse of processes plus my personal claim and my costs and solicitors costs.

It's their call - I'll happily walk away with a full apology and £500. Anything less, see you in court where I go for the kill.