TTC v Very

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Letter from Moorcrap to-day = vanquis ( I pay them (vanquis) £1.00 as and when, as regards the entry (search) on CRA file we can do that under: - section 9 of the lending code (www.lendingstandarsboard.org.uk, our client is entitled to deligate to its agent, basically states :- when instructing debt/collectors to take action to recover debts. There is no obligation on our client to seek authority before instructing agents. ( I removed their (Moorcroft) authority as not be owners under any assignment and remove trace of search ( nobody else has ever left trace on CRA file and there has been many in the past few years,.

We verify conditions between our clients T&Cs of (my) agreemnent we can conduct a search with CRAs information held is accurate (how would they know information is accurate) in line with principle 4 of the Data Protection Act.
With this in mind we believe our search was valid and we would be unable to remove such action from your CRA file as requested. We refer you to your T&Cs for clarification of our involvement and authority in relation to this matter,

we also note your request for payment of fee of £30.00 we are not prepared to discharge any element oyf your suggested charge since there is no direct Contractual term between us which give rise to any obligation on our part of this nature, We reiterate we act on our client!s instruction and under their remit in relation to this account which our client believes to be true.

contact us bl;a bla bla.
14 days to do so.

well another letter will go off to them and cost spreadsheet, then see them run maybe?

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

any comments regarding points they have raised on searches.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

any comments regarding points they have raised on searches.

No????

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Follow up letter to Moorcroft to reiterate the entry i the CRA file. off to-morrow.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Daughter received a phishing letter to-day from Advantis on behalf of Cabot; - we have been instructed by our client Cabot Financial ltd, to verify the current whereabouts of Mxxxx xxxxxx formerly resident at ,,,,,,... (No address) in relation to an outstanding business matter.

We are writing to verfy that we have your correct contact address. If you are the person named above please contact us on ??????( nothing stated) to discuss the business matter that requires your urgent attention.

Please accept our apologies if you are not the person named. We would appreciate if you would call us on ????? no number again, to confirm this is so that we may update our records, this will prevent further unwanted or unsolicited letters and possible telephone calls. signed scribble.

So the paragraph above seems to take for granted that the so named may not read it but other persons may open a mail not belonging to them. Tut Tut Tut!!

Well just goes to show letters are sent out incomplete and a rubbish organisations clerical errors.

well as the Daughter does not live here, and a previous Lowells chasing letters & my responses to them ended up they wrote off the only outstanding so called debt the daughter had, will wait and see if a follow up chasing letter arrives soon.
Once again please accept my apologies.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

well silly answer phone auto message left on MY home phone, well sort of ???????????????????? no name etc? you are not being charged for this call! (who?) if you are not there ring 0844xxxxxxxxx, ( wonder if it is the queen)? as does not say!, well Advantis it is easy to trace your number without effort.

What a shambles of kindergarten child like proceedures, and they get people paying them for some sort of alledged debt, must be from the type school playground of these days - un educated.?

Ditto - 08-10-2013
Ditto - 09-10-2013 - 9.13
Ditto- 10-10- 2013 bit later to-day
Ditto- 14/10/2013 18.40
Ditto - 15/10/2013 14.50
Ditto - 16/10/2013 18.11
Ditto - 17/10/2013 13.01
Ditto - 18/10/2013 1059 useing 0845
Ditto - 22/10/2013 1040

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Daughter received a phishing letter to-day from Advantis on behalf of Cabot; - we have been instructed by our client Cabot Financial ltd, to verify the current whereabouts of Mxxxx xxxxxx formerly resident at ,,,,,,... (No address) in relation to an outstanding business matter.

We are writing to verfy that we have your correct contact address. If you are the person named above please contact us on ??????( nothing stated) to discuss the business matter that requires your urgent attention.

Please accept our apologies if you are not the person named. We would appreciate if you would call us on ????? no number again, to confirm this is so that we may update our records, this will prevent further unwanted or unsolicited letters and possible telephone calls. signed scribble.

So the paragraph above seems to take for granted that the so named may not read it but other persons may open a mail not belonging to them. Tut Tut Tut!!

Well just goes to show letters are sent out incomplete and a rubbish organisations clerical errors.

well as the Daughter does not live here, and a previous Lowells chasing letters & my responses to them ended up they wrote off the only outstanding so called debt the daughter had, will wait and see if a follow up chasing letter arrives soon.

another letter received to-day states a small amount of money under cabot, but not what it is in relation to?

usual threats we may / might./ etc etc etc. they are obviously pressing different buttons the incompetant gits. have to ask daughter if she ever owed such a small amount to anybody if so how long ago.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

another letter from Advantis to-day. threatogram. Usual may may that etc.

Daughter says it might be Vodaphone, but if it is she paid that about 3 years ago, and why they chase this address as she did not live here at that time, but another town completly, mind you all forums are stating Vodaphone have got it wrong on their accounts. and she does not live here now either. they state collecting on behalf of Cabot, but does not state who they are chasing on behalf of i.e. vodaphone. timbucktoo or whoever.

Nearly time for a Bill from me having to investigate their nonsence and answer machine nonsence they do not even name the person they are calling these days.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Letter from Moorcrap after pointing out that I pay £1.00 direct to Vanquis via Impact) and to go away.

Their response " Thankyou for contacting us to discuss your account, and confirm we are prepared to accept monthly payments of £1.00 as from November 26 2013, This arrangement subject to periodic review at out discretion and may be terminated at any time by us.


Somebody in that area kick their ass Idiots.

Politness now ceases, I will send them another Bill for my time and add the other spreadsheet total to them.

And in plain language unless you own the debt piss off for the 2nd time.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Letter from Moorcrap after pointing out that I pay £1.00 direct to Vanquis via Impact) and to go away.

Their response " Thankyou for contacting us to discuss your account, and confirm we are prepared to accept monthly payments of £1.00 as from November 26 2013, This arrangement subject to periodic review at out discretion and may be terminated at any time by us.


Somebody in that area kick their ass Idiots.

Politness now ceases, I will send them another Bill for my time and add the other spreadsheet total to them.

And in plain language unless you own the debt piss off for the 2nd time.

Have paid Impact again to-day = twice this month as well = wow profits up by £2.00 to-wards xmas party, wonder if they will invite me expenses paid?

Any ideas from peeps?

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Yet another letter from Moorcrap exactly the same as the one before. dated 25/10/2013. i.e. £1.00 payments to them?

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

another letter from Advantis to-day. threatogram. Usual may may that etc.

Daughter says it might be Vodaphone, but if it is she paid that about 3 years ago, and why they chase this address as she did not live here at that time, but another town completly, mind you all forums are stating Vodaphone have got it wrong on their accounts. and she does not live here now either. they state collecting on behalf of Cabot, but does not state who they are chasing on behalf of i.e. vodaphone. timbucktoo or whoever.

Nearly time for a Bill from me having to investigate their nonsence and answer machine nonsence they do not even name the person they are calling these days.

Same threatogram received to-day

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

Same threatogram received to-day

Advantis - (who are dis-advantaged) Another letter to-day:- sorry we omitted a telephone number to contact us = shame, enough said about un-educated morons, a 2 year old could do better.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

telecon yesterday left message = advantis

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: TTC v Very

E-Mail from Noddle, they do not like me repeating complaints against the entry of search by Moorcroft regarding a Vanquis account which had been raised on many occassions and their refusal to correct/remove the entry, they now threaten to stop me using their site if I persist chasing the dispute which they say has been responded to, (Unsatifactory). They have been told in no uncertain terms they are responsible for the content of their site, and further action against them may take place if no satisfactory outcome ensues! keep them on their feet>.