Tweet
Re: nanna58 UE Diary
That letter is a complete pile of skunk dung.
They may have “complied with the request for documentation”, but is that documentation enforceable? Is it a true copy of the original, or just a Blue Peter job? The issues which matter are not being addressed, and you have to question why.
Pixie's suggestion is a good reply for now, and if they keep coming back I would think about using Priority One's CPUTR letter.
The sentence “All further queries in reference to the documents provided must be sent directly to our client and a fee may apply” is even worse than skunk dung. If they are the assignee who is communicating with you concerning the alleged debt, then they are responsible for fielding any queries regarding documentation. Fees would only apply if you either submitted another CCA request, which you wouldn't, or a Subject Access Request. You could point out the law (which they already know) to them, but it is probably better to leave that for another time.
SH
That letter is a complete pile of skunk dung.
They may have “complied with the request for documentation”, but is that documentation enforceable? Is it a true copy of the original, or just a Blue Peter job? The issues which matter are not being addressed, and you have to question why.
Pixie's suggestion is a good reply for now, and if they keep coming back I would think about using Priority One's CPUTR letter.
The sentence “All further queries in reference to the documents provided must be sent directly to our client and a fee may apply” is even worse than skunk dung. If they are the assignee who is communicating with you concerning the alleged debt, then they are responsible for fielding any queries regarding documentation. Fees would only apply if you either submitted another CCA request, which you wouldn't, or a Subject Access Request. You could point out the law (which they already know) to them, but it is probably better to leave that for another time.
SH
Comment