Could they be UE?

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Thanks Pixie
Where are the 'sarcastic' ones, when they’re online as I don't recall ever seeing them?

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Here is the letter I plan to send them;

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

This is unbelievable, I have offered them payment and then because they are ignoring all attempts to settle it, I have informed them the accounts are in dispute. Yet, they have the nerve to pass the FW one onto Moorcroft! WTF.

Any suggestions ?

Just noticed, again they suggest to clear the debit, they want me to use a CREDIT CARD.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Could they be UE?

This is unbelievable, I have offered them payment and then because they are ignoring all attempts to settle it, I have informed them the accounts are in dispute. Yet, they have the nerve to pass the FW one onto Moorcroft! WTF.

Any suggestions ?

Just noticed, again they suggest to clear the debit, they want me to use a CREDIT CARD.

Just wait and see what Moorcroft say when they write..... no rush is there?

[pooky2483]

Re: Could they be UE?

Just re-read the letter. Moorcroft are one of FIVE they threaten to pass it on to...

[ken100464]

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.

[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 :-)

[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?

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

Administration Department
PRIORITY
PO Box 5428
Manchester
M991AB

[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?

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.

[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?

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

[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?

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...