I have had a response to my letter (thread 23) it is a standard computer generated letter, whereas i usually get a personal reply, from Pat Madine who is handling this matter. It basically says thank you for your complaint i (Pat) will be looking into it. Well i read this and saw red there was no way i was going allow them to fob me off, so i phoned them (something i never do but glad i did). It seems Ms Madine, on the date of sending her reply went on two weeks holiday. Did she really think this was not serious and could just shove it under the carpet untill she got back....i dont think so! After long discussions and by having Littlewoods by the short and curlies they have, once again, promised they will ask for the account to be returned. Low and behold yesterday i get a letter from IQOR saying they had returned the account to Littlewoods. Now i dont want to let this drop, i want compensation (but without going to court if i can help it) anybody got any ideas on what i can now write? It must include removing my personal data from the CRA's which Littlewoods are currently refusing to budge on.

I have written to the ICO and according to them what Littlewoods have by way of my consent is me actually purchasing goods from the Littlewoods catalogue. The fact there is no credit agreement is neither here nor there. ICO say Littlewoods are perfectly within thier rights to process my data. That is thier final response, they have washed thier hands of it i cannot pursue it through the ICO any further.

I could really do with a bit of advice, do i ignore IQOR and Littlewoods or pursue it further?

bump

Hi guys i have not been here for a while as you can see. Initially there was not any reason to come back to this thread as Littlewoods advised me in writing they would not puruse the debt....WRONG..... its now a few months down the line and i have been harrassed by a number of DCA's. Instead of going through the last few months in detail i have posted below a letter to Littlewoods dated 29 Feb 08 it should give you a jist of whats been happening since they told me they would not pursue. I am writing to you in the hope of finally resolving this very tedious and tiresome issue and to also prevent it from going to Court. On 11th April 2007 I requested a copy of the executed consumer credit agreement for the above alleged account, this request went unanswered for a period exceeding the 12 working days allowed by the Consumer Credit Act, as well as the further 1 calendar month meaning that your company committed a summary criminal offence. On 30th July 2007 I received a letter advising me that since there was no signed agreement the company (Littlewoods) confirmed they will not be pursuing the outstanding balance of £119.16 (please see attached) I would suggest for the purposes of clarity before this matter is placed before the courts, you are seen to be acting in a transparent manner. Since your letter dated 30th July 2007 your company have instructed four Debt Collection Agencies to collect on your behalf:- Nationwide Debt Recovery Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd Midas Legal Services Fredrickson International You should know and already be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take any action against an account whilst it remains in dispute or while the company itself remains in default as per the guidelines of the OFT, what makes this situation worse for yourself is the fact that you clearly advised you was not going to pursue this matter. This undoubtedly would be classed as harassment. It is my opinion that you should, in accordance with section 14(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, cease processing all data in my name that is held by yourselves. Furthermore I now require you to erase and destroy all data in respect of myself. Also that in accordance with section 14(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998, that you notify all third parties to whom the data has been disclosed to instructing them to rectify, remove and erase any and all data (including adverse credit history markers) regarding me as the data subject Please be under no misconception that with the above in mind unless you immediately instruct the above debt collectors to cease pursuing this matter and If you do not respond positively and satisfactorily within 14 days of receipt of this letter, sent recorded delivery, I will issue you with a final letter before County Court action, giving you a further 14 days to respond in full. Failure to respond satisfactorily will result in the full weight of the law being bought against you for a claim Harassment and breach of Data Protection principles and regulations, along with damages and costs, and seek an order for any/all data disclosed and recorded (including records supplied to Credit Reference Agencies) by you to be immediately withdrawn and removed. I trust I have made my position clear This is thier response:- I can confirm that upon checking our records that letter sent to you dated 30/7/07 confirmed that the outstanding balance would not be pursued. Please accept my sincere apologies that you continued to receive letters from Debt Collection Agencies regarding the balance. Despite my request on 30/7/07 that the debt would not be pursued due to not having a credit agreement for the account, it appears that it was an operator error, which resulted in the account being followed up. I can confirm that on 1/9/07 your account was sold to Pheonix Debt Recoveries with an outstanding balance. I have again contacted our Debt Collection Agency Team to advise them of what has happened and have instructed them to have your account returned from Pheonix Debt Recoveries. In relation to the data held regarding your account you have requested that we remove your data and inform all third parties with whom that data has been disclosed to due to the absence of a signed credit agreement. We disagree with the statement and would comment that it is not supported by any legislation. We do need consent to process data and we need to tell you how we will process your data, but this consent does not have to be contained within a signed credit agreement. I thought that was the end of it untill i reveiced a notice of assignemnt from LIttlewoods on th 3rd April advising me they sold the debt on teh 2nd April!!!! what ever happened to the 1 Sept 07 i will never know. I am now being chased by IQOR on behlf of Pheonix debt recoveries. This is my last letter to Littlewoods, i am now pulling hair out. I also realise i mentioned the Police in this letter and am aware this is wrong but i just didnt know what else to say. Thank you for your letter dated 14th March 2008, in which you were sincerely apologetic with regards to how this matter has been handled. Unfortunately my complaint does not end there and I have documented the series of events below. After you have read my comments I hope you will realise the seriousness of this. 11th April 2007 – I request a true signed copy of the credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. 1st May 2007 – I write to Littlewoods advising this alleged debt is still in dispute. 21st May 2007 – I write to Littlewoods asking why they have ignored my letter dated 1st May 2007 6th June 2007 – I write to Littlewoods advising them that the deadline to supply a true signed copy of the credit agreement has now passed. 15th June 2007, 16th June 2007, 14th July 2007 – Nationwide Debt Recovery attempt to recover this alleged debt. 27th June 2007 – I write to Littlewoods regarding the lack of credit agreement and ask that they cease unlawfully processing my data. 16th July 2007 – I write to Littlewoods asking why they have instructed Nationwide Debt Recovery to pursue this alleged debt. 30th July 2007 – Littlewoods advise me that they do not hold a signed credit agreement and as a result Littlewoods will not pursue the debt. 11th August 2007 – Nationwide Debt Recovery are still trying to recover this alleged debt, even though Littlewoods have confirmed it would not be pursued. In advising that a debt will not be pursued also means Littlewoods must refrain from instructing debt collection agencies. 22nd August 2007 – I write to Littlewoods asking why they are still trying to pursue this debt. 22nd September, 4th October 2007, 22nd October 2007, 26th October 2007 and 16th October 2007 – Moorcroft persist in harassing me for a debt that Littlewoods advised would not be pursued. 6th November 2007 – Midas Legal Services attempt to recover this alleged debt. 11th February 2008 – Fredrickson International Ltd attempt to recover this alleged debt. 29th February 2007 – I write to Littlewoods advising that their continued pursuance of this alleged debt now amounts to harassment and advised them of possible court proceedings. 14th March 2008 – Littlewoods apologise sincerely for the way this matter has been handled. I am advised that Littlewoods did indeed say that alleged debt would not be pursued but due to an operator error the account was sold on 1st September 2007 (note I have highlighted the date). Littlewoods have also confirmed they will instruct Phoenix Debt Recoveries to return the account. 3rd April 2008 – Littlewoods advise me the account was sold to Phoenix Debt Recoveries on 2nd April 2008 – again note the highlighted date. Littlewoods previously advised me it was sold on the 1st September 2007. 4th April 2008 – I receive a letter from IQOR Recover Services demanding payment of this debt in full I now require Littlewoods to explain why they lied about the assignment of this alleged debt, why they have found it necessary to instruct various debt collection agencies after Littlewoods admitted they do not hold a signed credit agreement and why after advising they would, did not contact Phoenix Debt Recoveries and ask for the account to be returned. It seems you have not only deceived me but possibly your debt collection agency for selling a debt that does not exist. I am sure you are aware that this is fraudulent. This matter has now gone on long enough, I have been constantly harassed for a debt that does not exist and this has all been down to Littlewoods. As a result should IQOR take me to court I will be calling for not only all the debt collection agencies but also Littlewoods to be held accountable for their actions and to explain themselves to the court. Furthermore should this harassment continue you will leave me no alternative but to involve the Police. The Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Ombudsmen Service have also been made aware of this. Yours Faithfully

To pay six months in advance is the norm, i pay mine six months in advance, however, the managing agents do allow the residents to pay monthly although this is not allowed for within the lease. This has nothing to do with your mortgage (well not a such) your solicitor would have read the lease and will have advised you of anything out of the ordinary, unfortunately, they dont advise you of the prescribed payment methods (well mine didn't!) Aqeuitas is right they can only charge for what is stated in the lease. My lease does not state anything about admin charges and my managing agents tried to sting me for Admin charges, politely told them to get stuffed! This is the problem with leasehold properties, you have to pay your service charges and ground rent otherwise the freeholder has a legal right to forfeit your lease (lets not try to get into that yet, that is worst case and i am assuming your managing agents have not threatened this, and there are honest ways to get round it) You can email me your lease if you want, i should say at this point i am a leaseholder and have just come out of a two year dispute with mine managing agents, i know my lease back to front!!! There are other ways to get this paid, i will try and help as much as i can. Yaff

.........Starting again

It just seems a coincidence, the Beagals were 'attacked' maybe it happened here.

The OFT Test Case ended on Friday.....a coincidence!?!?!

Thank you for your answer, i have indeed considered going through the LVT, however, i thought i might have missed this chance when i completed my defence. If i wished it to go to LVT i was under the impression i had to state at defence stage that this case would possibly be out of the judges juristiction? The issues i have is that the solicitors have attempted to issue paperwork after starting court proceedings, this is paperwork the managing agents were supposed to issue two years ago, they are also very unclear about how much they should be suing me for and what period it relates to. If i have the opportunity to ask the judge to transfer it i will, i might even then be able to get the managing agents to provide all the costs / invoices relating to the management charges, this is something they seem very reluctant to do. How can the charges be determined as fair when the owners have not had the chance to view the maintenance invoices? My fear is that because i have not mentioned this in my defence, i will not get the chance to bring it to the judges attention. Thanks Aequitas

Thank you, i just needed a little something as my other letters dont seem to be hitting the spot! I will send it to Wescot and Natwest CMS, lets see what they come up with this time.

I have an overdraft with Natwest, the limit is £800. I also had a Natwest Credit Card, i wont go into the credit card bit too much as this is another story but basically i CCA'd for the card, Natwest took offence and said they were closing my Current Account (which has the OD) and were going to offset funds. As a result i opened a safe account, stopped paying the OD off in full (i have paid it off in full every month for years) and made an offer of £5.00 per month, this was refused. the balance is now £1187.39 and is being handled by Wescot. Anything added after the £800 is charges. I have sent my prelim letter requesting in total £644.62, this charges applied over the last 6 years and includes contractural interest. Ok thats the history done with. Natwest as expected are referring to the OFT course case and say that they will not refund charges and will continue with recovery action for the outstanding debt. I have sent the prelim letter off to Wescot, Natwest Credit Management Services and Natwest Customer Relations. This letter includes schedule of charges etc. Natwest have written to me today (my prelim letter and this have crossed in the post) this is what it says:- Thank you for your letter dated 28th January 2008. Your comments have been noted. Due to the current court case between the Office of Fair Trading and the Banks, there is no guarantee that you will be eligable for a refund of charges if the court rules in favour of the bank. Therefore, recovery action will continue on your account and any refund due will be given after the resolution of the court case. Your Accounts have now been passed to Wescot Credit Services to recover the debt on our behalf and any proposals for repayment should be made with them.[/I] Can the bank still take me to court whilst there are still these charges outstanding??

Firstly i would S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Fredrickson and Nationwide to try and establish whether the debt has been sold or not and what charges are on the account, this also puts it in dispute again and if the Sols did try to sue you the judge will probably put a stay on it untill they have complied with your CCA and SAR request

does your agreement say, is the interest calculated? I would say that if the agreement says 54 months, then that is it and no more, you are under no obligation to pay more than what the agreement says. If you have signed the agreement and they have executed it, then it is binding. If they have forgotton to add interest then that is thier problem, and they know it! If you dont have an agreement, i suggest you get a copy ASAP.

Sorry Juslookin to be the partpooper here but having just looked at the links...that about the capital letters and strawman account are only applicable to US law not UK. Reference: Somewhere else [accessed 23/1/08, author m55dlc]

I had a response from the Claimant's solictors this morning, they are obviously denying everything i said in my defence and they have enclosed a copy of thier allocation questionnaire. At the bottom they say....'We look forward to the small claims track'.....they are talking like they have it in the bag! Oh they have admitted that the claim should now be less than what was stated on the POC...does that help me on anyway? I could really do with some advice

As far as i am concerned none of the above has been done, the only problem i think i will have is with regards to the invoice that was attached to the POC, i am sure they are going try and say it was properly served.

To help i below are the sections of the relevant acts that i am referring to:- 1. Section 47 Notice The service charge accounts are a written demand falling within section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, but the service charge accounts do not contain the information required by that section. In consequence, no part of the amount demanded for service charges or administration charges is due. Section 47 of the Act applies to premises which include a dwelling, as provided by section 46 of the Act. Section 46(1) says : "46. (1) This Part [Part VI] applies to premises which consist of or include a dwelling and are not held under a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies [business tenancies]." Section 47 falls within Part VI of the 1987 Act. Section 47(1) says : "47. (1) Where any written demand is given to a tenant of premises to which this Part applies, the demand must contain the following information, namely - (a) the name and address of the landlord, and (b) if that address is not in England and Wales, an address in England and Wales at which notices (including notices in proceedings) may be served on the landlord by the tenant." 2. Section 48 Notice The service charge accounts are a written demand falling within section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, but the service charge accounts do not contain the information required by that section. In consequence, no part of the amount demanded for rent, for service charges, or for administration charges is due. Section 48 of the Act applies to premises which include a dwelling, as provided by section 46 of the Act. Section 46(1) says : "46. (1) This Part [Part VI] applies to premises which consist of or include a dwelling and are not held under a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies [business tenancies] " and section 48 falls within Part VI of the 1987 Act. Section 48(1) of the Act says : "48. (1) A landlord of premises to which this Part applies shall by notice furnish the tenant with an address in England and Wales at which notices (including notices in proceedings) may be served on him by the tenant." Note: the two are very similar Section 20B of the 1985 Act says : "20B. (1) If any of the relevant costs taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge were incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment of the service charge is served on the tenant, then (subject to subsection (2)), the tenant shall not be liable to pay so much of the service charge as reflects the costs so incurred. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if, within the period of 18 months beginning with the date when the relevant costs in question were incurred, the tenant was notified in writing that those costs had been incurred and that he would subsequently be required under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by the payment of a service charge." Section 21B of the 1985 Act says : The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 21B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985(a) and section 178 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002(b), makes the following Regulations: Citation and commencement 1. These Regulations may be cited as the Service Charges (Summary of Rights and Obligations, and Transitional Provision) (England) Regulations 2007 and shall come into force on the 1st October 2007. Application 2.—(1) Subject to regulation 4, these Regulations apply where, on or after 1st October 2007, a demand for payment of a service charge© is served in relation to a dwelling(d). (2) Subject to paragraph (3) these Regulations apply to dwellings in England which are subject to a lease(e). (3) These Regulations do not apply where— (a) the lease is not a long lease within section 26 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985; and (b) the landlord is a local authority, a National Park Authority or a new town corporation. Form and content of summary of rights and obligations 3. Where these Regulations apply the summary of rights and obligations which must accompany a demand for the payment of a service charge must be legible in a typewritten or printed form of at least 10 point, and must contain— (a) the title “Service Charges – Summary of tenants’ rights and obligations”; and (b) the following statement —

I am being sued by my managing agents for non payment of service charges, i have paid some SC just not all of it and there is a reason. The property is mortgaged by myself and could really do with some imput. This is the stage i am at of sending off my allocation questionnaire, i recevied the Claimants AQ this morning with a ****ty letter. You will find below the POC and my defence....PLEASE tell me what you guys think. below is the particulars of the claim (from the Claimant) this relates to service charges for a leasehold property that i own (mortgaged). The Claimant management company claims interim service charges from the Defendant lessee pursuant to the terms of her lease of (address) dated 22nd March 1976 made between E G Acworth (Builders) Limited (1) the claimant (2) and Peter Frank Mortimer and Linda Christine Sale (3) in the sum of £806.50 as set out in the enclosed invoice dated 12th November 2007 as delivered on or about 21st November 2007 And the Claimant claims: (I) The said sum of £806.50 (ii) Interest on the sum of £86.50 at 8% p. a. pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the 31.7.06 - 3.12.07 (490) days = £9.29 (iii) Interest on the sum of £360 at 8% p. a. as aforesaid from the 31.1.07 - 3.12.07 (307 days) = £24.22 (iii) Interest on the sum of £360 at 8% p. a. as aforesaid from the 31.7.07 - 3.12.07 (125 days) = £9.86 (iii) Interest on the sum of £806.50 at 8% p. a. as aforesaid from the 4.12.07 until the date of judgement or payment whichever is sooner the daily rate of interest being 18p Now the lease states that they must send me a demand for payment (i.e invoice, and it does sadly say that they can charge 6 months in advance, eventhough the below does not clearly state this). I have never recevied an demand the first i saw it was when it came attached to the particulars of the claim (and in this case i dont believe it has been properly served, more on this further down) The invoice:- Interim Service Charge Due 31st July 2006 £360.00 Interim Service Charge Due 31st January 2007 £360.00 Interim Service Charge Due 31st July 2007 £360.00 Invoice total £1080.00 Less sum received on account ( £273.50) Balance to pay £806.50 Now here is my defence i hope it highlights most of my issues. (if doesnt or it is wrong then i am buggered) DEFENCE The Defendant denies that she is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant claims the demand for service charge was issued to the Defendant on or around 21st November 2007. This is flatly denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such a notice was served on, and received by the Defendant. In light of this it is averred that the Claimant is in breach of sections 47, 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and sections 20b, 21b of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Defendant has no liability to pay service charges as the requirements of the abovementioned Acts have not been met. The Claimant claims for interim service charges. Service charges payable in advance that date beyond the date of this claim. The Claimant is attempting to take legal action against the Defendant for a period that has not occurred yet and has failed to take into account the payments that have been and will be made since the date of this claim The Claimant claims the on account payment totals £273.50, the Defendant rejects this. The Defendant, up to December 2007 had paid £393.50 The Claimant claims the on account payment of £273.50 was made within the Interim Service Charge period 31st July 2006, the Defendant rejects this. Various payments were made between August 2006 and July 2007. The Claimant is not entitled to claim the interest as set out in particulars of claim as they are in breach of the abovementioned Act’s and have incorrectly calculated the amount and period in which the on account payments were made. Accordingly, the Defendant does not know the case it has to meet and the Particulars of Claim neither disclose any cause of action with any reasonable prospect of success and/or are an abuse of the process of this Court and, in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules can and should be struck out pursuant to part 3.4 of the same. Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant’s conduct in issuing the claim is vexatious and amounts to unlawful harassment pursuant to section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s claim is entirely unmeritorious and invites the court to strike out the claim for the aforementioned reasons. I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true

Ed999 - i could do with your help. This matter has dragged on for sometime. The Lessor has now decided to take me to court for some unpaid service charges. However i am getting in a muddle. I pay my service charges monthly, they have just issued me with an invoice that shows interim service charges that go back to June 2006, they have deducted some of the payments i have made and are suing me for the rest. This is first time i have ever seen this invoice, i didnt even know i was to pay 6 months in advance (this what the invoice states) surely they have to issue some kind of invoice at the beginning of each year? (our accounts go up to 30th April each year) And i have not recevied the accounts for year ending April 2006. The solictors have said the Lessor used the matter of the share certificate as a 'red herring' so this is being ignored, as you said i should. I have still held money back for other reasons. What kind of lease makes you pay six months in advance...especially when the managing agents have a habit of doing bugger all!

Curiosity will get you in the end, but using my first hand experience with Littlewoods and having the exact same letters i can 110% tell you that they dont have anything important to discuss with you, it is simply a ploy!!! For me Littlewoods admitted they do not have an agreement, so they have now instructed Moorcroft, who i have ignored totally because they are threatening me with court, i want them to take me to court but what i am finding rather amusing is the fact that Moorcroft has sent thier 'This is your final warning before court action' letter, on my last count four times! I think we can call that stalling.

Tormterm...maybe you could answer this. A creditor defaults you and subsequently enters a judgement, which is granted. Should the judgement automatically clear the default off the credit file? Before i new of CAG i got a CCJ from NEXT after they defaulted me. The default is on there being updated monthly (the figure is being reduced by the payments i am making via the CCJ) But the CCJ is also listed ...is this right, shouldn't there be just one or the other?

Robert1168, How did you get on with this, i see you filed the defence of the 6th July. what kind of response have you had? Did Cohen's file thier response to your defence in time?

Are those sections you mentioned at the beginning of this thread suitable to use in a defence?? (obviously the breach has to relate to those sections)...i am assuming they are still in force and you have already allowed for amendments.

Basically i need to familiarise myself with the relevent sections if i intend on using them in my dispute with the managing agent and landlord. The sections i am going to use are the ones in Ed's other thread but i would like to read those sections in full first. Ok i might not be a lawyer, but i like to think i have a level of intelligence that will enable me to understand some of these sections in Ed's thread....there is nothing worse than going in blind.