TTC v Very

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

applied for Halifax current account before above and was refused,

Tried CO-OP - refused, stating check equifax CRA as info taken from there? hence the e-mails sent above.

cap - lowells default should be off the file now. CCJ HSBC no CCA1974 since 2011, so have to stick to the account I have now,

10/10/2014 - Letter from CO-OP detailing that they use CRA and Equifax was used and suggest I look into CRA file for information, but contact CO=OP if their assumption is wrong!

One thing I do know is we have not registered on electoral roll, and do not intend to for now, so I will stay where I am on banking, must cause bit confusion with DCAs etc as well -- ????????????/ is this the right person.

One day we might get a statesman if we are lucky not some uneducated self interest , so called leaders who operate against the Crowns population for bankers/selves!

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

What I am having to put up with the ICO:- so many negative responses asking for proof of the details, then the response is below:- ignoring Verys admittance they do not want to know; go to Capquest.


Very sold the debt on to Capquest who altered a Default date from 2013 to 2014, very do not want to know, the e-mail copy sent to you shows their hard luck e-mail response we sold disputed account so contact Capquest and copy of Capquest refusal to Noddle to correct entries as per Regulation.

Do you read e-mails properly and their contents??





On 16 October 2014 11:55, <casework@ico.org.uk> wrote:

16th October 2014

Case Reference Number xxxxxxxx

Dear xx xxxxxxxxx

I write in response to your correspondence of 15 October.

If the matter is still in dispute with Very.co.uk, then we are unable to assist.

If there is still inaccurate data once the dispute has been resolved, then please provide evidence of this and the further information I requested in my email of 15 October.

Yours sincerely,

Adele Roper
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office
01625 545 774


__________________________________________________ __________________

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

This was attached as copy given to ICO and then the nonsense response also copy of Noddle report showing wrong date referred to also capquest refusal letter to Noddle to correct information.


Thank you for your email about your account.


I am sorry to hear that your account was sold to an external agent while the dispute was going.Unfortunately, we are unable to answer your query.

Please contact the external agent as advised previously and they will be happy to help you.

If you have any further questions just let me know and I will be happy to help you.


Kind Regards

Mahesh Tarwde
Very.co.uk customer services team


If I'm not in, anyone else on our dedicated Very team can read my notes and help you.
See what's in store at www.very.co.uk






o: customerservices@capquestdr.co.uk

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

another letter from Noddle to-day Capquest refuse again to correct entries on CRA file, ICO keep saying as Very admit sold whilst in default, then the case should be with very, also contact Capquest and complain = for gods we have already done that !!

Regulators = get rid of them and put ordinary educated person in charge

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

another letter from Noddle to-day Capquest refuse again to correct entries on CRA file, ICO keep saying as Very admit sold whilst in default, then the case should be with very, also contact Capquest and complain = for gods we have already done that !!

Regulators = get rid of them and put ordinary educated person in charge

E-Mail from ICO states complain to capquest then come back we may assist,, = sheer waste of time proof of e-mail sent capquest & very responses already sent to them

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

No response what so ever from Capquest since my e-mails yet they have refused to correct the default date which very originally applied and just left it to their so called purchase date, Noddle state they refuse to alter dates,

Capquest also have not responded to original Telecom to them when I informed them account in dispute also 2 payments missing from shop direct submitted it seems during selling off, also sent copies of a statement of refund in/out of account by shop direct, also an e-mail shop direct state sorry for selling whilst in dispute but contact capquest the purchasers who will sort it out?

anybody had dealing with this crowd??

brought/forward for reference

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

24/11/2014 - letter from Capquest stating that Very cannot find Default notice but state they confirm that the date of default is 14 May 2014 - NOTE:- the debt Sale date = idiots, last year is the default notice date. no mention of two payments not recorded or their charges refund NOT!

or charges refunds.??

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Sent to ICO in response to their emails iuncl copy letters on the subject.



Equifax also refuse to correct yet noddle and equifax are the only two who refuse to correct entry as per regulation.

attached are Capquest eventual reply stating the obvious date they purchased also stating Very shop direct state no default notice but the sell date is the default date, also you can see september 2013, so these companies are breaking regulation, also under section 10, as the account with Very sold whilst in dispute and Capquest from discussion early in the year on the telephone new this and said they would sort out situation as FAILED to do so, includes non recorded payments by very.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

19/12/2014 - Letter from Noddle to-day stating:- Regarding Capquest:- After investigation we can confirm that the account is no longer present , no further action
is necessary.
#
You will be able to see the changes on your credit report when your next monthly update takes place.

Um!!!!!!!! took a long time to get this far, incl referring to ICO threats, then recent case in the courts, also other references from time to time.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Just Expedia being awkward, although a Formal complaint via e-mail to them on27th October 2014, they have a couple of weeks now to respond

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Brought forward for my record:- E-Mail response to dispute complaint i.e. sold on whilst in dispute.

10th June 2014

Thank you for your email about your account.


I am sorry to hear that your account was sold to an external agent while the dispute was going.Unfortunately, we are unable to answer your query.

Please contact the external agent as advised previously and they will be happy to help you.

If you have any further questions just let me know and I will be happy to help you.


Kind Regards

Mahesh Tarwde
Very.co.uk customer services team

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

VANQUIS - account

E-Mail received:- to-day:- From Moorcroft


Our system shows that you have failed to make your latest instalment on your repayment plan. Please call our offices as soon as possible on
0161 475 2907, or via our website www.MDRL.co.uk to discuss your account.Please do not ignore this email.

The Moorcroft Group Plc.



Maybe they have they have just woken up:-

Point One:- A letter from old address in 2013 stated that I make token payments to Vanquis direct ( still do),

Point two to them:- Demand they remove CRA search details.

[Point 3 -;- ) Charges sheet attached for cost in responding to their so called demands, another one for spam folder, they are hoping I respond no doubt,, they stated originally that I agreed to £1.00 payment to them, their interpretation of my comment to them that I was making that payments to Vanquis (Impact) direct.


Will not be responding as treating this as a trace E-Mail, and put it into spam area! ??

2 years later they try to contact via E-Mail, 1st contact since sending the above, E-Mail address? got from ??????????

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

VANQUIS - account

E-Mail received:- to-day:- From Moorcroft


Our system shows that you have failed to make your latest instalment on your repayment plan. Please call our offices as soon as possible on
0161 475 2907, or via our website www.MDRL.co.uk to discuss your account.Please do not ignore this email.

The Moorcroft Group Plc.



Maybe they have they have just woken up:-

Point One:- A letter from old address in 2013 stated that I make token payments to Vanquis direct ( still do),

Point two to them:- Demand they remove CRA search details.

[Point 3 -;- ) Charges sheet attached for cost in responding to their so called demands, another one for spam folder, they are hoping I respond no doubt,, they stated originally that I agreed to £1.00 payment to them, their interpretation of my comment to them that I was making that payments to Vanquis (Impact) direct.


Will not be responding as treating this as a trace E-Mail, and put it into spam area! ??

2 years later they try to contact via E-Mail, 1st contact since sending the above, E-Mail address? got from ??????????

must be phishing exercise as Month 3, 2015 and 3 payments made direct to Vanquis.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Very:-

Question :- Date of Default notice 02/09/2013
Received 07/09/2013
Rectify by 16/09/2013 ( No time for postage= Faulty)

sold account to Capquest May 2014, Capquest enter default on gaining disputed account as May 2014
Was informed a default should be recorded with CRAs within 6 months ????????

Is that correct???

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

must be phishing exercise as Month 3, 2015 and 3 payments made direct to Vanquis.

Another e-mail with the same yesterday from Moorcroft.


VANQUIS - account

E-Mail received:- to-day:- From Moorcroft


Our system shows that you have failed to make your latest instalment on your repayment plan. Please call our offices as soon as possible on
0161 475 2907, or via our website www.MDRL.co.uk to discuss your account.Please do not ignore this email.

The Moorcroft Group Plc.



Maybe they have they have just woken up:-

Point One:- A letter from old address in 2013 stated that I make token payments to Vanquis direct ( still do),

Point two to them:- Demand they remove CRA search details.

[Point 3 -;- ) Charges sheet attached for cost in responding to their so called demands, another one for spam folder, they are hoping I respond no doubt,, they stated originally that I agreed to £1.00 payment to them, their interpretation of my comment to them that I was making that payments to Vanquis (Impact) direct.


Will not be responding as treating this as a trace E-Mail, and put it into spam area! ??

2 years later they try to contact via E-Mail, 1st contact since sending the above, E-Mail address? got from ??????????