Cheers, post back here if I don't get back to it tomorrow please

Hello. I don't remember anyone mentioning going to one of these, maybe someone else will. I know it's a normal part of the system though and hopefully won't be anything to worry about. With luck, someone with detailed knowledge will be along later. My best, HB

This is a list of complaints resolved by Lee & the Vodafone webteam in the past few months, I think you'll find it self explanatory. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?259838-Vodafone-complaints-settled-by-VF-Webteam.&p=2930056&viewfull=1#post2930056

added to resolved thread

OK Silverfox The reference number on their notification email is WRT135 [#4106099] Regards Neo101

thank you very much fox. lee doesnt mess around, if you are right he gets the job done

I took Welcome on for a client, had the Charge removed, debt written off and funds repaid to the client on the basis that it was secured. If they do go under, then it would be interesting to see who they sell their loan book to, as there are a number of flaws in the agreements i have seen, NOW THEN, i am not saying all welcome loans are unenforceable, lets be clear, but they do make errors. Also id check the status of their CCA licence if they do go liquidation route, as if their licence is surrendered it becomes a criminal offence to sell it on without a licence.There was a case where someone went to prison, for unlicenced activity, i believe it was Hicks v Walker and Frank Reynolds Ltd -[1999] GCCR 721

If you applied online and it was last year, then the Agreement was almost certainly correctly administered. The CCA Laws were upgraded in 2006/7 to cover the 'loophole' and thus anything taken out after then should be watertight, and not unenforceable which is what a CCA request hopes to highlight. I do understand you unfortunate position, but as I said previously, that is the nature of these 'pay day' type companies. Personally, I really do not know what advice to give, but there are others on this thread that may well be able to help much more than I.

Payday Loans UK charge an eye opening 1737% APR, so there is a good chance that the amount on your file is the amount due for the period 3/6/09 to 22/9/09.

See the ICO's view on registering defaults. ICO Filing Defaults - version_v3 doc.pdf

There will be a bar code - which probably ahs the date hidden in it if it becomes a real issue. As I said on the other thread redirection should only add 1 day delay to the normal postal time - if it seems much longer then you should ask Royal Mail to explain - perhaps they can decipher the bar code and confirm actual date of posting? Did they not know of your current address in any case? It seems to be a common ploy for some OC's and DCA's to deliberately send cpourt papers to an old address and get judgement by default. Which OC/DCA is it? Good luck BD

If you applied for this online then it will most likely have have had a 'tick box' to comply with the CCA. How has a £30 kettle more than trebled in size? I wouldn't even begin to entertain this shower with CCA requests, simply tell them that you dispute their eroneous claim that you owe this money, which you don't! Tell them to remove all data they have incorrectly placed on your credit file immediately, if they fail to do so, you will seek legal advice with a view to taking them to court and suing for damages (£1,000 minimum!) Get in touch with the Credit Ref Agency (CRA) and tell them to remove this adverse data from your file, as you have no knowledge of this company, have never given them your permission to place info on your file and do not owe anyone anything, you will need to use their complaints procedure and exhaust it unless they see the error of their shady ways and remove the info, but be warned, CRA's are on the payroll of DCA's they are like the terrible twins, colluding with each other with scant regard for peoples personal information, you will need to escalate this to the ICO to investigate, a complaint to your local MP also might help to bring this to the fore in Parliament. Next is to get back in touch with Littlewoods and use their complaints procedure, tell them to call their chosen DCA puppet off, and to cancel any such agreement they thought existed between you and them, the Kettle you bought from them was not fit for purpose and failed after two weeks as the plastic base melted, you will be very happy to take legal action against them and sue for damages, as this matter falls under the Sale of Goods Act, their continued failure to collect the faulty item is not your problem, once again they have failed to show a reasonable level of care and skill in their dealings with you. If they fail to cut their losses, then they should put up or shut up, your not paying for a piece of melted plastic which they failed to competently collect on a number of occasions, you have therefore purchased another item which is still working after two weeks, unless they wish to reimburse you for the new kettle, then they should tell these fools to remove all adverse info from your CRF before you take legal action against ALL three, Littlewoods, Phoenix and the CRA.

I welcome the day when debts are sold, ALL the relevant paperwork has to go with it and then if the creditor has failed to maintain records properly, they should be penalised accordingly