Could they be UE?

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

A sar is 40 days, but looking at the above posts haven't you sent a CCA?

Besides if they haven't replied just wait til they do, no need to chase a CCA request...

Yes, I sent £1, isn’t a SAR £10.00
I thought the time limits were SAR 40, CCA 12+2

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Yes, that's correct.

If they are in default of your CCA request the debt is UE till they comply anyway so no need to chase.

...And I made a payment to Fashion World on 12 April, Ones due to Simply Be on 30 April. So non-compliance -I don’t have to pay 'em a single bean until they come up with the goods.
But what if they decide to slap charges on due to non-payment, youre probably gonna say claim them back laters IF they eventually comply with the CCA

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Could they be UE?

I think you're worrying unnecessarily - before sending CCA's you stop payments.

Why pay if you want to get defaulted/SB'd? makes no sense.....

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

I'd actually forgot
so, as they have not delivered the goods on the CCA request, it's by default and I don't have to pay 'em?

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Could they be UE?

as they have not delivered the goods on the CCA request, it's by default and I don't have to pay 'em?

Yes.

Aren't they clever?

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

That's good news then, lets all go out for a drink with what I'm saving

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Could they be UE?

There is, however, the (improbable) possibility that they did comply, at least to the extent imagined by wacky Waksman, by sending a 'reconstituted' agreement cobbled together from whatever was lying about in the office and/or hung on a nail in the staff karzi - and for their creative efforts to have been lost in the post.

It might be worthwhile chasing it a little.

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

There is, however, the (improbable) possibility that they did comply, at least to the extent imagined by wacky Waksman, by sending a 'reconstituted' agreement cobbled together from whatever was lying about in the office and/or hung on a nail in the staff karzi - and for their creative efforts to have been lost in the post.

It might be worthwhile chasing it a little.

Bubble Burster

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Is there a template to send them saying it's by default as they have failed to comply? ... Nothing sent and it's over the prescribed 12+2...

[Deepie]

Re: Could they be UE?

Is there a template to send them saying it's by default as they have failed to comply? ... Nothing sent and it's over the prescribed 12+2...

Just sit back and relax.......no need to send any letter just yet

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Just sit back and relax.......no need to send any letter just yet

TA, Willdo

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Just a quick update, still got no CCA back in the post...

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Well, Finally today, the CCA's got here.
BUT....
The address on them is out CURRENT address and NOT the one we were at when the accounts were' allegedley' opened
AND one one of them is an ALIAS that Mrs Pooky uses and NOT her real first name. And NOT signed by Mrs Pooky
Note: these were opened after that year, what was it, 2007/08/09? over the net!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Could they be UE?

If the above accounts were opened after 04/07 then forget UE - they can create a recon and use any info available to do so. The name is de minimis as well unfortunately - easy to rectify and thus never worth fighting on unless they started action against the wrong named person....

Point here, they'll be enforceable as far as s.127 goes (based on it being repealed) however I would blag these and send the missing PT's - worth a go

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Point here, they'll be enforceable as far as s.127 goes (based on it being repealed) however I would blag these and send the missing PT's - worth a go

That's what I was hoping you’d say
Cranking up the printer
(same ones I sent for my acc's - AW & JD, yes?)