SXGuy's UE Diary

[garlok]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Just a little thought SXGuy. Why block the calls. We did not know any better so we didn't block any calls so put up with the harassment and abuse. However we kept a log and that ahs proven to be very useful. It is also legal advice and now reinforced by the "Roberts v BoS" CoA judgement that you cannot claim harassment or the crossing of the line into criminal behaviour if you have not answered the calls.

We built up a very useful tool despite the grief it caused us at the time with which to now hit them with and in the end it became a blood sport for us. the recent SAR we did revealed all sorts of things like operators complaining to their managers that I was a "Yob", awkward, obstructive, offensive, used profane language and had told one operator that I had told him twice to go and boil his head. without mention that they were actually in total breach of the OFT guidelines, told lies and demanded monies not owing with menaces. Ho Hum but they did admit to calling us regularly in the middle of the night and in the small hours. Complaining that there was no answer after four rings.

So there are two sides to the answer or not to answer thoughts.

regards
G

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I understand where your coming from mate, but they ring the business phone at all hours, and its just simply to much to constantly answer the phone thinking its a client, when its not, then having to note the date and time.

It isn't very good when we have a client sitting there and the phone rings and its them either, makes us look very bad in my opinion.

I realise the effect it would have in court and how it would work in our favour, but it just isn't manageable given the situation.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I understand where your coming from mate, but they ring the business phone at all hours, and its just simply to much to constantly answer the phone thinking its a client, when its not, then having to note the date and time.

It isn't very good when we have a client sitting there and the phone rings and its them either, makes us look very bad in my opinion.

I realise the effect it would have in court and how it would work in our favour, but it just isn't manageable given the situation.

Since they keep ringing a businees phone report them to the regulator, and also tell them that proceedings may start and to read the Roberts v BOS case, also charge them for your time responding from now on. or tell them for every call they make to your works will incurr a charge, and that to make any more calls to the wotks number will be acceptance of the said charges per se.?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Could work, depends how I play it, In some cases where my mother stated on the applications that she was self employed she gave her work number which is how they have it, with others I guess they used 192 to find it as our private number is x directory.

If I send them a letter as you mentioned, would I not have to supply a new number? if I give them a private number to log calls it opens the flood gates again, if I give them Niddys 08 number I have no recourse as it goes unanswered.

Perhaps the next letter I receive from BCW could be responded to with a reminder to review my last letter plus a section regarding what you mention above.

[garlok]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I understand where your coming from mate, but they ring the business phone at all hours, and its just simply to much to constantly answer the phone thinking its a client, when its not, then having to note the date and time.

It isn't very good when we have a client sitting there and the phone rings and its them either, makes us look very bad in my opinion.

I realise the effect it would have in court and how it would work in our favour, but it just isn't manageable given the situation.

Fair enough. I can understand your position.

regards
G

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

In regards to Link and IDR, id hedge a bet and say that ignoring my letters informing them that the account is UE is their way of not admitting it and continue to chase in a vein attempt of payment being made.

I know Link have issued proceedings in the past, but of course every situation is different.

If my last contact from them was April and this letter isn't really threatening anything, should I ignore and file away or send a one liner referring to my letter sent in April to IDR?

[vint1954]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

You could ignore, but I always like to have the last letter on file.

A one liner would be fine.

[garlok]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Post deleted. Another senior moment
regards
G

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Another Wee update (surprised their typing letters and not out in this nice weather!)

Westcot RE Mint, seems they have gave back to OC as the debt is now appointed to Fredrickson to collect.

First ive heard of it is the welcome letter from Freds today, says if they do not hear from us they will write and/or phone.

So ill let this one file away and wait for the next letter before sending off a SWID

[vint1954]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Indeed, then just a one liner referring them to previous unanswered communications.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Ok so got another letter from Freds today re Mint.

Ignored the last one, this one is there standard template letter, saying contact within 7 days or may proceed to recover debt via courts. It also lists fees that would be added should they obtain judgement.

So as this will be the first time ive contacted them regarding this debt, ill fire off the SWID letter in the morning, the game is now on AGAIN

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Update

Fredricksons re mint have replied to my SWID letter, they have enclosed a copy of the letter sent to me direct from Mint on the 23rd March basically going over how the CCA is enforceable.

They say no further discussion regarding this matter will be accepted and await payment proposals.

As a reminder, this one is Enforceable and have been blagging it nearly 2 years.

Im wondering whether I should just ignore and wait and see what happens next and then send off creditor refusal to accept UE?

[Pixie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I would send it now...keep them confused

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Ok thanks, ill wait till end of the week and send it monday, just to add a few more days.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Update again, funny, goes quiet for months, then get communication all at once.

Link/IDR re Barclaycard, have sent some terms and conditions.

Previously they sent the signed application form and no terms, i sent them back at the begining of the year, creditor refusal to accept UE (i think will double check)

The cover letter says its a reconstitued copy of the agreement, the interest rates and charges are different than what they would be now (doesnt state they are accurate to account opening though)

Will scan and send to Niddy tomorrow but i smell a rat here, the terms are dated 2011, or not dated at all. The cover to the terms says here is your copy of the terms and conditions, so they are not the prescribed terms that came with the signed agreement. The cover letter also has a printed name and address, the address is not, nor has ever been my mothers address. So perhaps its clearly someone elses terms.

The terms which would have been one 1 peice of paper have been split over several peices.

No application sent with these terms so section 78 request has been sent in parts (i.e application june 2012, and terms now)