Could they be UE?

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

The main provisions of UE. Re-read my UE Guide and you'll see

Where is it

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

The main provisions of UE. Re-read my UE Guide and you'll see

I'll have a look for it.

Shall I send them the letter I posted above. Any suggestions on an edit?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Could they be UE?

The main provisions of UE. Re-read my UE Guide and you'll see

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Not at all matey - remember they can use ANY details provided to them on the recon. So if you've told them your new address and they create a recon based on that, it's fine.

However if the address is one you never lived at, then they have issues. It's £300 mate, chillax.

Just relax, think about things and you'll see you're missing the obvious. The address is not a barrier to utilise UE if it is an address taken from source (ie one you've previously used with that lender).

What's that???

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

It's not one that we never lived at, is current address.
I don't quite get where you’re going with it
I've written a draft letter but you might be able to make it better!

I have received your latest letter, dated 9th April 2013.
You again are asking for me to confirm my name. I have been replying by asking exactly what it is that you require me to send WHAT as proof, but all I keep getting back is 'Please send proof of who you are'. Exactly HOW do you require me to prove my identity as I am at a loss as to what it is that you require me to send as proof as you will not tell me what it is that you require me to send, unless all it is that you require is for me to just SAY who I am.


Also, I have just received a letter from Moorcroft , informing me that you (Fashion World) have instructed them to collect on the debt. Telling me that to prevent them (Moorcroft) recommending further action, I must settle the debt without delay, (Copy of letter enclosed). They also go on to explain that you have placed a default marker on the credit file of ****************. I must inform you that this action is wholly unlawful, in as such, you have not yet established the correct identity of the true account owner AND the account is in DISPUTE.


If these actions are not reversed in which you remove the default marker from the credit file and withdraw Moorcrofts authority over the account, I will have no alternative other than contacting the FOS and MoJ and any other regulatory body, where I will bring into question your ability to hold a credit licence and to operate a Debt Collection Agency, namely 'Reliable Collections'.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Could they be UE?

They also have the address wrong, they have our current address on the CCA and NOT the one used to open the account. To me, that's an CCA...

Not at all matey - remember they can use ANY details provided to them on the recon. So if you've told them your new address and they create a recon based on that, it's fine.

However if the address is one you never lived at, then they have issues. It's £300 mate, chillax.

Just relax, think about things and you'll see you're missing the obvious. The address is not a barrier to utilise UE if it is an address taken from source (ie one you've previously used with that lender).

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

They also have the address wrong, they have our current address on the CCA and NOT the one used to open the account. To me, that's an CCA...

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Could they be UE?

Well, Fashion World are being naughty.

They have not yet fully established who the account holder is and they have placed a default on the account holders credit file - WHILE IN DISPUTE. AND they have passed it onto a DCA.

As far as I know, these are things they CAN NOT do.

Naughty naughty

They know who the account holder is though mate - yea they have the first name incorrect but that really doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things...

Continue down UE path and forget the name error, it won't do you any good arguing that element

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Well, Fashion World are being naughty.

They have not yet fully established who the account holder is and they have placed a default on the account holders credit file - WHILE IN DISPUTE. AND they have passed it onto a DCA.

As far as I know, these are things they CAN NOT do.

Naughty naughty

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

I will be sending them a reply... In a couple of weeks

When I first started this road to unenforceability I thought, how on earth am I going to drag this out as long as I possibly can. Well, it has now been <just> over a year and it's still ongoing, maybe I could have dragged it on a lot longer than i have to where it currently is by not relying as quick as I have been doing.

And, as it is post 2009 there is no actual physically signed CCA, it was done 'digitally', shouldn't there be at least a digitally signed document such as a screenshot? My point being, there should at least be <something> that says Mrs pooky 'signed' the agreement?

If theres nothing with any 'signature' or proof of acceptance of agreement, then they shouldn’t be able to enforce anything? They should not be allowed to just send a blank agreement with <CURRENT> address on it and NOT the address which the agreement was allegedly 'signed', which is what they have done. That itself is a dodgy CCA and grounds for

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Why don't you provide the correct full name? How do you expect them to deal with your complaint, when you're not telling them your name?

Can see your point but I want THEM to tell me what they want, have you read the letters they're sending back, they're just repeating the demand and not saying WHAT proof it is they require.

Well, doing this is dragging it out lol.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Could they be UE?

Why don't you provide the correct full name? How do you expect them to deal with your complaint, when you're not telling them your name?

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

She also sent me a SAE
If anyone’s interested, the address is

Administration Department
PRIORITY
PO Box 5428
Manchester
M991AB

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Just got a reply back off them, they sent a reply to my last letter saying they want 28 days to look into it and then get back to me.

I cant believe what they said in the letter, they want Mrs pooky to provide proof of who she is before they proceed any further.

Stalemate me thinks as I keep asking them exactly what proof it is they require and they just keep asking

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

How can that be a correct letter to assign the debt?

Thats like saying it could go to anyone but we aint telling who. And notice it may not will. So they may not either.

Indecisive or what.

WTF.

Gerbil toilet paper.

And, I thought they had their OWN DCA... (UN)Reliable Collections. So, why can't they carry on handling the debt? Probably cos there AINT such DCA as Reliable Collections, it's just a ruse to think they're getting heavy on you by using a DCA. And when they can't get anywhere themselves, they decide to use a REAL DCA.

And, nah, it's Guinea Pig toilet paper, we got 4 :-)