Letter to my MP re historic banks charges - Please check

[un1boy]

Hi guys,

 

I have drafted the following letter which I want to send to my MP - it's a hybrid of the template on this site and some bits and bobs I wanted to add.

 

I'd really appreciate your views on it guys, just to check that I've not waffled etc....any advice/feedback at all is appreciated!!

 

____________________

I am writing to you to ask your views about the serious problem of unlawful penalty charges which are being applied by the UK High Street Banks to their customers and the way in which that companies in the UK Financial Industry misuse their customers data.

 

Firstly, t is a well established rule of Common Law that contractual penalty charges which exceed the actual losses suffered, in this case by the banks when a customer exceeds limits or a direct debit or cheque are returned, are invalid and will not be enforced by the Court. A series of judicial decisions going back over 100 years shows this to be true.

 

More recently, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 has confirmed that a disproportionate penalty would be an example of an unfair term and that this would therefore be unenforceable at law.

 

The Director General of the Office of Fair Trading announced in 2005 that any penalty charge which exceeded actual losses was disproportionate.

 

Yet despite this, the Banks continue to apply these charges, and of course the vast majority of bank customers accept the banks’ authority that these excessive charges are valid and pay them without challenge. It is not possible that the banks do not realise what they are doing.

 

A survey reported this year by the BBC and others, concluded that one in five bank customers suffered from these charges in 2005; this is a large proportion of your constituency! Most of these people have incurred penalty charges because they are in difficulty and many of these people are vulnerable and already have difficult lives.

 

The OFT, Banking Standards Board and FSA who are all empowered to investigate and regulate, show no signs of being reluctant to do so. All of these organisations and the courts in some instances seem to lean towards leniency for the multi-million pound companies whilst not supporting the consumer’s rights.

 

Many people have taken legal action against the banks. The banks almost never go to court, fearing a formal judgment against them. Instead, they threaten many claimants with the possibility of account closure and use aggressive tactics to try and make the laymen and women who are claiming against them drop their claims. Many Banks are using the court system to their advantage, taking some claims to the point of court date, forcing the claimants to pay extra costs in the hope that they will not be able to pay and/or get scared so withdraw their claims: The banks then make a full settlement before the trial date – sometimes within the hour that a case is due to be heard. The Banks solicitors try to enforce or assume confidentiality and other conditions on the claimants and make false statements about the law, knowing that the claimants are acting alone and with little or no legal knowledge or representation. These Banks are failing to produce their papers at the request of the court and judges are awarded them with stays, even though the claimants are managing to prepare their case in time.

 

Through the Internet sites such as The Consumer Action Group (www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk) I am in touch with many people who are challenging the banks, all at different stages of claiming.

 

The Unlawful Penalty Charge racket is apparently worth £3 billion per year. It is not surprising that they are not anxious to give it up.

 

As for the Financial Industry, there are also many people that have been affected by the companies in the UK’s Financial Industry using their data in an unlawful manner. Many companies issue Default markers on customer’s credit files with the Credit Reference Agencies without actually issuing Default notices, or issuing them in an incorrect format as required under Sections 87 and Section 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the CCA). When these companies are challenged over the situation the Data Controllers and Credit Reference Agency’s (CRA’s) just reply with the fact that they are right and are able to store the data. The Information Commissioner has also recently released a statement to these Data Controllers that they are able to hold information about Defaulted accounts for 6 years and without consent. The Data Protection Act states clearly that the only information in the public domain may be obtained for 6 years; for example County Court Judgments.

 

Defaulted accounts are in no way in the public domain and are placed on Data Subjects’ credit files with little consideration by the banks or other companies, often even without following the steps legally required under the CCA. Once an account has been Defaulted it is also terminated, along with all consent from the Data Subject for the Data Controller to process and store their Data. Yet, the CRA’s and other Data Controllers still process information about the Data Subject.

 

The CRA’s seem to accept no liability for the information they hold and tell us that the data is owned by the Data Controllers in question when the CRA’s are in fact themselves Data Controllers in their own right.

 

I would appreciate your views on the current processes used within the Financial Industry, especially as Default markers cause considerable problems for the Data Subjects as they pay higher interest rates on Mortgages and Loans, can effect someone’s career or job opportunities, as well as other problems. The consequences can be so severe, yet the Data Subject has no means of appeal or to put their case forward, unlike with a County Court Judgment. The problem with the CRA’s are that they are privately owned companies that make millions of pounds a year in profit from other people’s data. If there was one, state owned and government run CRA surely that would be more effective than having three, privately owned ones?

I would be grateful if you would reply to me and let me know what your views about this are, and what steps you would be prepared to take to bring this scandal to an end.

 

Can you think of any reason why, by their dominant position the UK banks and the Financial Industry should hold themselves above the civil rule of law?

 

Thank you for your time.

_____________

[Guest willowb]

Hi guys,

 

I have drafted the following letter which I want to send to my MP - it's a hybrid of the template on this site and some bits and bobs I wanted to add.

 

I'd really appreciate your views on it guys, just to check that I've not waffled etc....any advice/feedback at all is appreciated!!

 

____________________

I am writing to you to ask your views about the serious problem of unlawful penalty charges which are being applied by the UK High Street Banks (UK Financial Institutions) to their customers and the way in which that companies in the UK Financial Industry misuse their customer's data.

 

Firstly, it is a well established rule of Common Law that contractual penalty charges which exceed the actual losses suffered, in this case by the banks when a customer exceeds limits or (by way of) a direct debit or cheque are (being) returned, are invalid and will not be enforced by the Court. A series of judicial decisions going back over 100 years shows this to be true.

 

More recently, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 has confirmed that a disproportionate penalty would be an example of an unfair term and that this would therefore be unenforceable at (within) law.

 

The Director General of the Office of Fair Trading announced in 2005 that any penalty charge which exceeded actual losses was (were) disproportionate.

 

Yet despite this, the Banks continue to apply these charges, and of course the vast majority of bank customers accept the banks’ (their) authority (and trust) that these excessive charges are valid and pay them without challenge. It is not possible that the banks do not realise what they are doing.

 

A survey reported this year by the BBC and others, concluded that one in five bank customers suffered from these charges in 2005; this is a large proportion of your constituency! Most of these people have incurred penalty charges because they are in difficulty and many of these people are vulnerable and already have difficult lives.

 

The OFT, Banking Standards Board and FSA who are all empowered to investigate and regulate, show no signs of being reluctant to do so. All of these organisations and the courts in some instances seem to lean towards leniency for the multi-million pound companies whilst not supporting the consumer’s rights.

 

Many people have taken legal action against the(se) banks (and they) almost never go to court, fearing a formal judg(e)ment against them. Instead, they threaten many claimants with the possibility of account closure and use aggressive tactics to try and make the laymen and women who are claiming against them drop their claims. Many Banks are using the court system to their advantage, taking some claims to the point of court date, forcing the claimants to pay extra costs in the hope that they will not be able to pay and/or get scared so withdraw their claims: The banks then make a full settlement before the trial date – sometimes within the hour that a case is due to be heard. The Bank(')s solicitors try to enforce or assume confidentiality and other conditions on the claimants and make false statements about the law, knowing that the claimants are acting alone and with little or no legal knowledge or representation. These Banks are failing to produce their papers at the request of the court and judges are awarded(ing) them with stays, even though the claimants are managing to prepare their case in time.

 

Through the Internet sites such as The Consumer Action Group (www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk) I am in touch with many people who are challenging the banks, all at different stages of claiming.

 

The Unlawful Penalty Charge racket is apparently worth £3 billion per year. It is not surprising that they are not anxious (not) to give it up.

 

As for the Financial Industry, there are also many people that have been affected by the companies in the UK’s Financial Industry using their data in an unlawful manner. Many companies issue Default markers on customer’s credit files with the Credit Reference Agencies without actually issuing Default notices, or issuing them in an incorrect format as required under Sections 87 and Section 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the CCA). When these companies are challenged over the situation the Data Controllers and Credit Reference Agency’s (ies) (CRA’s) just reply with the fact that they are right and are able to store the data. The Information Commissioner has also recently released a statement to these Data Controllers that they are able to hold information about Defaulted accounts for 6 years and without consent. The Data Protection Act states clearly that the only information in the public domain may be obtained for 6 years; for example County Court Judgments.

 

Defaulted accounts are in no way in the public domain and are placed on Data Subjects’ credit files with little consideration by the banks or other companies, often even without following the steps legally required under the CCA. Once an account has been Defaulted it is also terminated, along with all consent from the Data Subject for the Data Controller to process and store their Data. Yet, the CRA’s and other Data Controllers still process information about the Data Subject.

 

The CRA’s seem to accept no liability for the information they hold and tell us that the data is owned by the Data Controllers in question when the CRA’s are in fact themselves Data Controllers in their own right.

 

I would appreciate your views on the current processes used within the Financial Industry, especially as Default markers cause considerable problems for the Data Subjects as they pay higher interest rates on Mortgages and Loans, can effect someone’s career or job opportunities, as well as other problems. The consequences can be so severe, yet the Data Subject has no means of appeal or to put their case forward, unlike with a County Court Judgment. The problem with the CRA’s are that they are privately owned companies that make millions of pounds a year in profit from other people’s data. If there was one, state owned and government run CRA surely that would be more effective than having three, privately owned ones?

I would be grateful if you would reply to me and let me know what your views about this are, and what steps you would be prepared to take to bring this scandal to an end.

 

Can you think of any reason why, by their dominant position the UK banks and the Financial Industry should hold themselves above the civil rule of law?

 

Thank you for your time.

_____________

 

Hi there :>)

It's a fantastic letter, nice one!

 

I've made a few changes, s'up to you wether you apply them.

 

Wxxx

[un1boy]

Hi Willow,

 

Thansk for the changes - I'll redo it....I'm actually embarassed about some of them to be honest!.....I mean I'd never normally type agency's !!!! I know it's agencies!!!

 

I'll let you know when it's sent....

 

I've never written to my MP before, should I send it recorded an how long do they get before replying, or should I email it?

[Guest willowb]

I know....but it's when you are eager to type or tired from typing that mistakes are made, even the most experienced writer needs a proof reader;)

 

Wxx

[un1boy]

Aw thanks Willow!

 

this keyboard sticks loads too, grr....

[tamadus]

go over it again and use a spell checker un1, I noticed a couple of other mistakes but I'm sure a checker will find them. Otheriwse it's an excellent letter.

 

You can send it by mail to your MP at the houses of parliament or look up their email address and email it.

 

I used email for speed recently and got an initial reply from mine within 2 hours, so that obviously saved about 3 days.

[un1boy]

Hiya Tam...

 

Thanks for your Feedback, I will check it over again before I send it.......I've got the MP's email, so I'll do it today.

 

Thansk again!

[un1boy]

Right guys, I've tweaked it around a little - I'd appreciate another proof-read if that's ok??

 

___

I am writing to you to ask your views about the serious problem of unlawful penalty charges which are being applied by the UK Financial Institutions to their customers and the way in which the companies in the UK Financial Industry misuse their customers’ data.

 

Firstly, it is a well established rule of Common Law that contractual penalty charges which exceed the actual losses suffered, in this case by the banks, loan companies etc when a customer exceeds limits or by way of a direct debit or cheque being returned are invalid and will not be enforced by the Court. A series of judicial decisions going back over 100 years shows this to be true.

 

More recently, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 has confirmed that a disproportionate penalty would be an example of an unfair term and that this would therefore be unenforceable within law.

 

The Director General of the Office of Fair Trading announced in 2005 that any penalty charge which exceeded actual losses were disproportionate.

 

Yet despite this, the lenders continue to apply these charges, and of course the vast majority of customers accept their authority and trust that these excessive charges are valid and pay them without challenge. It is not possible that the banks do not realise what they are doing.

 

A survey reported this year by the BBC and others, concluded that one in five bank customers suffered from these charges in 2005; this is a large proportion of your constituency! Most of these people have incurred penalty charges because they are in difficulty and many of these people are vulnerable and already have difficult lives.

 

The OFT, Banking Standards Board and FSA who are all empowered to investigate and regulate, show no signs of being reluctant to do so. All of these organisations and the courts in some instances seem to lean towards leniency for the multi-million pound companies whilst not supporting the consumer’s rights.

 

Many people have taken legal action against the lenders and they almost never go to court, fearing a formal judgment against them. Instead, they threaten many claimants with the possibility of account closure and use aggressive tactics to try and make the laymen and women who are claiming against them drop their claims. Many Banks are using the court system to their advantage, taking some claims to the point of court date, forcing the claimants to pay extra costs in the hope that they will not be able to pay and/or get scared so withdraw their claims: The lenders then make a full settlement before the trial date – sometimes within the hour that a case is due to be heard. The lenders’ solicitors try to enforce or assume confidentiality and other conditions on the claimants and make false statements about the law, knowing that the claimants are acting alone and with little or no legal knowledge or representation. These lenders are failing to produce their papers at the request of the court and judges are awarding them with stays and extra time to prepare their cases, even though the claimants are managing to prepare their case in time.

 

Through the Internet sites such as The Consumer Action Group (www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk) I am in touch with many people who are challenging the lenders, all at different stages of claiming.

 

The Unlawful Penalty Charge racket is apparently worth £3 billion per year. It is not surprising that they are anxious not to give it up.

 

As for the Financial Industry, there are also many people that have been affected by the companies in the UK’s Financial Industry using their data in an unlawful manner. Many companies issue Default markers on customer’s credit files with the Credit Reference Agencies (CRA’s) without actually issuing Default Notices, or not issuing them in the correct format as required under Sections 87 and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). When challenged directly, many companies processing customer’s data (Data Controllers) claim to own the customer’s data (Data Subject). When challenged through the CRA’s they seem to accept no liability for the information they hold and tell us that the data is owned by the Data Controllers in question when the CRA’s are in fact themselves Data Controllers in their own right. This is surprising as, CRA’s are registered with the Information Commissioner as Data Controllers and therefore have a legal obligation to make sure the information they hold is correct and obtained legally. The CRA’s often never obtain evidence of this and advise the customer to contact the company who “owns” the Data direct. The Information Commissioner has also recently released a statement to these Data Controllers that they are able to hold information about Defaulted accounts for 6 years and without consent. The DPA clearly states that the only information in the public domain may be obtained for 6 years; for example County Court Judgments.

 

Defaulted accounts are in no way in the public domain and are placed on Data Subjects’ credit files with little consideration by the banks or other companies, often even without following the steps legally required under the CCA. Once an account has been Defaulted it is also terminated, along with all consent from the Data Subject for the Data Controller to process and store their Data. Yet, the CRA’s and other Data Controllers still process information about the Data Subject.

 

I would appreciate your views on the current processes used within the Financial Industry, especially as Default markers cause considerable problems for the Data Subjects as they pay higher interest rates on Mortgages and Loans, can effect someone’s career or job opportunities, as well as other problems. The consequences can be so severe, yet the Data Subject has no means of appeal or to put their case forward, unlike with a County Court Judgment. The problem with the CRA’s is that they are privately owned companies that make millions of pounds a year in profit from other people’s data, which I thought was immoral and completely against the purpose of the DPA. If there was one, state owned and government run CRA surely that would be more effective than having three, privately owned ones?

 

I would be grateful if you would reply to me and let me know what your views about this are, and what steps you would be prepared to take to bring this scandal to an end.

 

Can you think of any reason why, by their dominant position the UK banks and the Financial Industry should hold themselves above the civil rule of law?

 

___________

[Guest willowb]

Right guys, I've tweaked it around a little - I'd appreciate another proof-read if that's ok??

 

___

I am writing to you to ask your views about the serious problem of unlawful penalty charges which are being applied by the UK Financial Institutions to their customers and the way in which the companies in the UK Financial Industry misuse their customers’ data.

 

Firstly, it is a well established rule of Common Law that contractual penalty charges which exceed the actual losses suffered, in this case by the banks, loan companies etc when a customer exceeds limits or by way of a direct debit or cheque being returned are invalid and will not be enforced by the Court. A series of judicial decisions going back over 100 years shows this to be true.

 

More recently, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 has confirmed that a disproportionate penalty would be an example of an unfair term and that this would therefore be unenforceable within law.

 

The Director General of the Office of Fair Trading announced in 2005 that any penalty charge which exceeded actual losses were disproportionate.

 

Yet despite this, the lenders continue to apply these charges, and of course the vast majority of customers accept their authority and trust that these excessive charges are valid and pay them without challenge. It is not possible that the banks do not realise what they are doing.

 

A survey reported this year by the BBC and others, concluded that one in five bank customers suffered from these charges in 2005; this is a large proportion of your constituency! Most of these people have incurred penalty charges because they are in difficulty and many of these people are vulnerable and already have difficult lives.

 

The OFT, Banking Standards Board and FSA who are all empowered to investigate and regulate, show no signs of being reluctant to do so (?)All of these organisations and the courts in some instances seem to lean towards (display?)leniency for (towards) the multi-million pound companies whilst not supporting the consumer’s rights.

 

___________

 

Hi there:)

 

Just a few minor points. I'm not sure about the underlined sentence above, you may want to rework that? Or do you mean that they are open to change within the system, then leave it as it is? I wasn't sure....

 

It's a great letter, I can't wait to see the response;)

 

Wxx

[un1boy]

Not at al, I'd rather get it right and thanks loads for your time in reading it...here's how the new bits read now:

 

I am writing to you to ask your views about the serious problem of unlawful penalty charges which are being applied by UK Financial Institutions to their customers and the way in which these institutions misuse their customers’ data.

 

 

Firstly, it is a well established rule of Common Law that contractual penalty charges which exceed the actual losses suffered, in this case by the banks, loan companies etc when a customer exceeds limits by way of a direct debit or cheques being returned and the like are invalid and will not be enforced by the Court. A series of judicial decisions going back over 100 years shows this to be true.

___

 

 

I kept this paragraph the same:

 

The OFT, Banking Standards Board and FSA who are all empowered to investigate and regulate, show signs of being reluctant to do so. All of these organisations and the courts in some instances seem to lean towards leniency for the multi-million pound companies whilst not supporting the consumer’s rights.

___

Because I think both ways are saying the same thing....hope you don' mind....if you think any different, please let me know!!

[Guest willowb]

Yes I do:mad:

 

well done

 

Wxx

[Guest Battleaxe]

Maybe we could send this letter to our own MP's

[tamadus]

I have already contacted my MP and will be sending more info to him this week. I think we should all lobby our MP's for action.

[un1boy]

Hi Battlexe.....that's problem at all, gald you like it....I think they will need to have quite a few sent in....my only conern is though if everyone sends the same one, lol. I don't know if that will effect anything though...

 

Right, I'm going to make one more proof read and hen email it to my MP...

 

I'll post when it's done!

[un1boy]

I have already contacted my MP and will be sending more info to him this week. I think we should all lobby our MP's for action.

 

So do I.....I think that is going to be the only way things will get sorted - imagine if all 80 thousand CAG members sent letter to their MPs......they;d have to do something, because, if not for any oher reason, they'd get fed up of having to reply to the same issues over and over again!!

[un1boy]

I've tried getting the email address formy MP, but all it says is to fill in forms....grrr...

 

Anyone know if there's like a generic email address, like firstname.surname@houseofcommons.gov.uk or something?

[un1boy]

Right....this is the final versio that will be emailed as soon as I get his email address:

 

___

 

REF: UK FINANCIAL INDUSTRY’S UNLAWFUL PRACTICES

I am writing to you to ask your views about the serious problem of unlawful penalty charges which are being applied by UK Financial Institutions to their customers and the way in which these institutions misuse their customers’ data.

 

Firstly, it is a well established rule of Common Law that contractual penalty charges which exceed the actual losses suffered, in this case by the banks, loan companies etc when a customer exceeds limits by way of a direct debit or cheques being returned, misses payments and the like are invalid and will not be enforced by the Court. A series of judicial decisions going back over 100 years shows this to be true.

 

More recently, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 has confirmed that a disproportionate penalty would be an example of an unfair term and that this would therefore be unenforceable within law.

 

The Director General of the Office of Fair Trading announced in 2005 that any penalty charge which exceeded actual losses were disproportionate.

 

Yet despite this, the lenders continue to apply these charges, and of course the vast majority of customers accept their authority and trust that these excessive charges are valid and pay them without challenge. It is not possible that the banks do not realise what they are doing.

 

A survey reported this year by the BBC and others, concluded that one in five bank customers suffered from these charges in 2005; this is a large proportion of your constituency! Most of these people have incurred penalty charges because they are in difficulty and many of these people are vulnerable and already have difficult lives.

 

The OFT, Banking Standards Board and FSA who are all empowered to investigate and regulate, show signs of being reluctant to do so. All of these organisations and the Courts in some instances seem to lean towards leniency for the multi-million pound companies whilst not supporting the consumer’s rights.

 

Many people have taken legal action against the lenders and they almost never go to court, fearing a formal judgment against them and the possibility that the Court will order standard disclosure against them, forcing them to show the exact costs involved. Instead, they threaten many claimants with the possibility of account closure and use aggressive tactics to try and make the laymen and women who are claiming against them drop their claims. Many Banks are using the Court system to their advantage, taking some claims to the point of court date so forcing the claimants to pay extra costs in the hope that they will not be able to pay and/or get scared so withdraw their claims: The lenders then make a full settlement before the trial date – sometimes within the hour that a case is due to be heard. The lenders’ solicitors try to enforce or assume confidentiality and other conditions on the claimants and make false statements about the law, knowing that the claimants are acting alone and with little or no legal knowledge or representation. These lenders are failing to produce their papers at the request of the court and Judges are awarding them with stays and extra time to prepare their cases, even though the claimants are managing to prepare their cases in time, despite the responsibilities of full time work, running a home and bringing up a family.

 

Through the Internet sites such as The Consumer Action Group (www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk) I am in touch with many people who are challenging the lenders, all at different stages of claiming.

 

The Unlawful Penalty Charge racket is apparently worth £3 billion per year. It is not surprising that these lenders are anxious not to give it up.

 

As for the Financial Industry, there are also many people that have been affected by the companies in the UK’s Financial Industry using their data in an unlawful manner. Many companies issue Default markers on customer’s credit files with the Credit Reference Agencies (CRA’s) without actually issuing Default Notices, or not issuing them in the correct format as required under Sections 87 and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). The lenders also fail to produce copies of these when asked, yet still insist the entries are valid. When challenged directly, many companies processing customer’s data (Data Controllers) claim to own the customer’s data (Data Subject). When challenged through the CRA’s they seem to accept no liability for the information they hold and tell us that the data is owned by the Data Controllers in question. This is surprising as, CRA’s are registered with the Information Commissioner as Data Controllers and therefore have a legal obligation to make sure the information they hold is correct and obtained legally. The CRA’s often never obtain evidence of this and advise the customer to contact the company who “owns” the data direct. The Data Controllers only seem to remove the entries and Default markers when the Data Subject has issued Court proceedings, (which costs the claimant £150.00 per claim) even though they tell the Claimant before Court proceedings that the entries are held legally. The Information Commissioner has also recently released a statement to these Data Controllers that they are able to hold information about Defaulted accounts for 6 years and without consent. The DPA clearly states that the only information in the public domain may be obtained for 6 years; for example County Court Judgments.

 

Defaulted accounts are in no way in the public domain and are placed on Data Subjects’ credit files with little consideration by the banks or other companies, often even without following the steps legally required under the CCA. Once an account has been Defaulted it is also terminated, along with all consent from the Data Subject for the Data Controller to process and store their data. Yet, the CRA’s and other Data Controllers still process information about the Data Subject and only stop once the Court proceedings are issued against them.

 

I would appreciate your views on the current processes used within the Financial Industry, especially as Default markers cause considerable problems for the Data Subjects as they pay higher interest rates on Mortgages and Loans, can effect their career or job opportunities, as well as other problems. The consequences can be so severe, yet the Data Subject has no means of appeal or to put their case forward, unlike with a County Court Judgment. The problem with the CRA’s is that they are privately owned companies that make millions of pounds a year in profit from other people’s data, which I thought was immoral and completely against the purpose of the DPA. If there was one, state owned and government run CRA surely that would be more effective than having three, privately owned ones?

 

I would be grateful if you would reply to me and let me know what your views about this are, and what steps you would be prepared to take to bring this scandal to an end.

Can you think of any reason why, by their dominant position the UK banks and the Financial Industry should hold themselves above the civil rule of law?

 

Thank you for your time.

____

[tamadus]

Good letter now

 

Whats your MP's name Un1 I'll see if I can find his email addy for you.

[un1boy]

Hi Tam,

 

Soz, I've been out...I've PM'd you.

[un1boy]

Ok guys - letter sent today - I sent it normal post which felt weird becasue I'm so used to sending things recorded at the mo, lol..

[un1boy]

Ohh ohhh ohhh - just when I thought my MP wasn't interested.......look what came through my door today:

____

 

Dear Mr. Un1boy

 

Thank you for your recent letter. I have raised the issue with the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and industry, and once I receive a response I will be back in touch.

 

With best Wishes

 

Tony Lloyd MP

___

 

Woohoo - I'm excited now, hehe - did he have to refer it to the DTI? Or has he done it to help? I'm going to wirte to him and let him know that Smile are closing my accounts, with a copy of their letter too, just for reference, what you reckon!?

 

Thanks for all your hel p -I'll keep you posted!

[Guest willowb]

OMG! that great:D

 

I feel that I may have to copy and paste someone's letter!

 

Good on you honey:)

 

Wxx

[tamadus]

Without a doubt un1 let him know they are taking retaliatory action against you because your standing up for your legal rights.

 

I'm still waiting for a reply from my MP so I'll keep you posted.

 

Looks like the DTI and secretary of state are going to be getting a bit busier

[un1boy]

OMG! that great:D

 

I feel that I may have to copy and paste someone's letter!

 

Good on you honey:)

 

Wxx

 

Hehe, no problem - just make sure it's not to the same MP, lol.

 

How's things going with you anyway Willow?

[un1boy]

Without a doubt un1 let him know they are taking retaliatory action against you because your standing up for your legal rights.

 

I'm still waiting for a reply from my MP so I'll keep you posted.

 

Looks like the DTI and secretary of state are going to be getting a bit busier

 

Hey Tamadus - little mr site helper - how did that happen?!! congtrats.

 

I will, I'll draft a reply and post it here....I'll keep you all posted.

 

Pretty good result, don't ya think? Especially seeing as some people have had replies saying that their MP's agree with the charges!!