RIP Marty, have fun up there with the Rooster :(

It should be a birthday card! I actually cringe when I see this thread pop up now.

These (long and protracted) discussions have been ongoing, but IW now accept my position and have agreed settlement of the claim, which is nice - and all I wanted all along. Happy days...

I have IW's attention, now at least. Aside from blaming me for all of this () the discussions are ongoing. Update soon, as the Court deadline approaches and I don't intend on backing down from my position as I've outlined. Their communications with me will certainly raise an eyebrow from the Judge, when we get there. Oh, IW have 'locked my account for security reasons', so I can't order from them again. As if! What 'security reasons' are these then? I may ask Customer Services to explain that. This seems very unfair to me. As for Moorcroft, they have returned the account to IW. I bet they have! They have failed, however, to reply to me about it despite raising a formal complaint about their handling of this. I shall wait for the 6 week date to pass and get on to the FOS about their behaviour, also.

Nothing from any of them. Took me some time, but MCOL now issued: Issue - 21 November Service date - 26 November Defence/Acknowledgement date - 10 December Defence date, if acknowledged - 24 December Moorcroft have until 8 December to respond to my complaint, or that will be off to the FOS next

Reply from Moorcroft: They best be quick about it, time is running out. Hello, guests. Nice to have you here.

Reply from IW: Now, that is an interesting response to a threat of legal action, is it not? I hope I hear back from Moorcroft and receive my full refund before Sunday, or it's straight on to MCOL to issue a claim. Unbelievable that they've effectively dismissed my query and are refusing to call off Moorcroft at this stage!

Had this from Ideal World, clearly before my email was sent: So, let's break this down. £67.33 owed to IW, but that includes 2 x £10 admin charges, plus VAT. (£24) The ACTUAL 'debt' (I 'quote' debt, as I don't owe them anything!) is £43.33. These admin charges account for 55% of the 'debt'. Then there's the 'debt collection agency charges'. 14% plus VAT for collecting, (£9.43, plus £1.89 VAT) or 29% plus VAT for doorstep collecting. (£19.53, plus £3.90 VAT) That's, either, 16% in charges for 'collecting', or 34% in charges for 'doorstep collecting'. This is AFTER IW's charges of 55% have been applied to the balance. :jaw: Remembering that the 'debt' is only £43.33, these 'charges' - both IW's admin charges and those added by Moorcroft - amount to 82% of the balance if I pay now, or a whopping 109% of the balance if I don't pay and they have to send a doorstep collector. :jaw: IW are 'explaining' Moorcroft's fees without ACTUALLY telling me what their own charges are for. I think I'll file this and have some fun with it later on when they reply. Remember that I gave them 7 days to reply, which is 4th November, or I'll issue a small claims court action without further communication.

Thanks Unky, but the order numbers only identify me to them and I suspect they will know who I am when they read that email anyway. Mind you, it took them about a week to reply to other emails querying orders previously, so I may see something from Moorcroft before I do from Ideal World. It's a shame my (and your) experiences have been so negative - they sell some good products at decent prices, but they really need to sort their service out if they intend on keeping customers in the longer term. I'll be using QVC more often, instead

Hi Forum, long time no speaky... This says it all really, so here goes: I will of course update as and when I get a response

I don't like Christmas, or surpises, for this very reason!

Spoil my fun, already?!

The splitting points appear to be Darlington, York, Doncaster, Newark Northgate, Peterborough. Single tickets split between those stations mean I can do there and back at a reasonable time of day for £160

Well, not really, enigmatic, as the OP hasn't had the elusive Final-Final-Final-Final demand, yet. Do keep up, chap! :lol:

Exactly. The claim against the OP has been judged and they shouldn't be using debt collectors to harass him - any enforcement of the Judgment should be via the Court, not by other means that are outside of the Courts' process.

It is poor business practice, having multiple companies collecting on debts and while Court proceedings are underway To complain to the FOS, you need to write outlining your complaint to the company involved giving them time to respond. If they reply and you aren''t happy with the response, or they take longer than 8 weeks to reply, you can proceed to complain to the FOS

You should complain to them first, as you;ll need a final response fromt hem to get to the FOS

It's unfair trading practice for a debt to be sold or collected while Court proceedings are underway - you should consider complaining about this practice to the Financial Ombudsman as you're now unwilling to go to Court. They have been known to seriously compensate those on the receiving end of such practice, plus you could always use a trade off of withdrawing your FOS complaint should they withdraw from the Court claim and write off the debt. You need to be as creative as they are...

That's the point, an estoppel can't be inferred - it has to be explicit. Promissory estoppel is a promise not to do something in exchange for a benefit and there has been no promise here, only a change in how the debt is recorded with the CRA

I think it's better to let sleeping dogs lie, unless you are specificially interested in and could successfully challenge any incorrect information on your CRA file There can't be an estoppel here, as no promises to not collect on the debt have been made, and even if they have, (by virtue of the CRA entry being zero'd and not chased - which is unlikely on balance of probabilities) then that would only apply to the OC, who is the one recording the data. It won't apply to debt collectors, should the OC have assigned the debt elsewhere and washed their hands of it, which is highly likely if you were paying a nominal amount on a much larger balance. (It's in their interests to write the debt off for tax reasons in such circumstances) Of course none of this means that you shouldn't pay, as CAG isn't in the ethic of avoiding legally owned debts, so if you wanted to establish what the situation is, you could either DPA SAR the OC, (which would have no legal ramifications on their claim against you - they are still a data controller under the DPA) which should reveal where the debt has gone, you can contact them to query it, or you can restart your nominal payments. Either of those 2 latter actions could result in you being chased for the debt, which may not necessarily happen if you don't do anything.

We had a 'Final demand notice' in August last year - shouldn't this be a 'Final final demand notice', and will there be a 'Final final final demand notice' arriving next? This could go on for some time...

Yes. The requirement is to have sent a Termination Notice to end an overdraft agreement to allow them to default you. You're attempting to find out, from their records, whether a TN was sent. You don't need to know if you received it, but unfortunately the legislation doesn't require you to have received it for them to take that action against you as they have. If you can show no TN was sent, then you will have a case for removing the default, but there would be nothing to stop them sending a new TN, now, and re-adding the default on your CRA file

They returned the £1 payment? Yes, the debt is statue barred if not acknowledged in the last 6 years, you should also send the harassment letter to stop them chasing you.

Yes, they should, because an overdraft is a CCA regulated debt. The problem with this is getting it removed, as the overdraft has been used and you haven't paid it, therefore the debt is overdue and you are in default of payment. Removal of Defaults isn't an easy thing to do, unless you can demonstrated that any of those things recorded are incorrect and inaccurate under the Data Protection Act, as the CCA isn't entirely clear on your rights and you may end up relying entirely on the DPA. Did you receive a termination notice? It would be worth sending a Data Protection Act Subject Access Request (templates available in the library) and ask for data relating to your Account to see