Hi Has anyone had any success dealing with Scottish Power with any alternative remedy to the Energy Ombudsman, please? I'm helping out a seriously ill friend whose bills have got in a mess over a number of year he's been in and out of hospital with various internal organs packing up. I've been trying to disentangle his energy bills which is through Scottish Power which he had no choice about as it was mandatory as part of his rental. It's all very convoluted but comes down to them refusing repeatedly to amend the billing address to make sure he received bills, failing to provide any tariff information at all and simply applying whatever tariff at any one time was the most advantageous for them, and now it turns out that the meter readers he was letting into the property (which is a redeveloped mill with many apartments) weren't in fact reading the meters at all so the bills have been estimated. Not getting the bills means he's not been able to draw down any of the discounts he'd have been entitled to and he's now being billed for usage they can't prove he ever used. While this complaint has been ongoing, even though I'm Court-appointed as his representative they won't use my address or contact to resolve this, have ignored offers to pay, and have passed the account while in dispute and with the Ombudsman to debt collection agents who keep ringing him on a mobile number Scottish Power have told the Ombudsman they've never had when I personally have been fielding up to 10 calls a day from Scottish Power and its agents to that number. The Energy Ombudsman's view is that Scottish Power don't and still don't have to amend the address even though that would mean that him, as one of the parties to the contract, would actually receive bills for the service they're trying to charge for. They also say that Scottish Power can charge whatever they want without him agreeing or seeing tariffs when surely he is entitled to clear, accurate and timely bills. They say it doesn't matter that there's no proof of what energy he's used, he has to pay it anyway. I genuinely don't understand that at all, when any supply is between two parties and must be equitable. My view is that he should have to pay what he's used but not for what they can't prove was him and could've been earlier tenants, he shouldn't be charged high tariffs he never agreed to in the first place, he should be allowed the discounts they've deprived him of. With the harassment on top of this, and their steadfast refusal to try and get the matter sorted in a way that's equitable to both sides of the contract, my inclination is to take Scottish Power to Court to get it sorted. Has anyone tried this, or been able to get other mediation involved to get it sorted fairly? Any help much appreciated, ta, Claire

Hi I'm doing it as one claim because they've already admitted in writing that the PPI was mis-sold - that step has already been taken and they've admitted culpability. I need to include it in the discussions about the enforceability of the agreement as the mis-selling itself is a breach of contract and an unfair term with them exercising an unfair relationship; the PPI is listed as an obligatory component of the CCA on the CCA they claim is the executed one, and has been detailed on that CCA as part of the agreement rather than separate as a different category of credit for which the prescribed terms haven't been included, so the PPI itself is one of the things which are wrong with what they claim is the executed agreement which then have a cumulative effect. I'm happy with the content of my Particulars of Claim; I just needed to know what form would be correct, when Halifax County Court seemed to think it wasn't a matter for the court at all. Thanks for the help though. Cheers Claire

Eyup That's fantastic, cheers for the help. Thanks Claire

Hey Thanks for the advice: I already sent it to the AA and all they did was escalate the harassment and passed it to other debt collectors after the first lot passed it back to them on grounds that it was disputed. I've based the Particulars of Claim on the advice on the forum and have further investigated the details of all the legislation, precisely so I understand the details so I can argue my whole claim myself. Some of it is actually very simple precisely because they've admitted they mis-sold the Payment Protection Insurance. Having tried the Ombudsman first who said it has to go to a court of law, I have had very bad experiences with solicitors and am not in the position to throw any more money at the problem. I want to issue these forms and get it resolved one way or the other. All the advice is that it's the N1 form; if the court say it isn't, what form should I use? Cheers Claire

Hey Some guidance please. I'm at the stage of issuing claims against AA Visa/Loan - both of which have improperly executed agreements, and both of which included Payment Protection Insurance which AA have admitted was mis-sold but which monies they've held onto against the disputed account. Having got nowhere with the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman very specifically said that a court had to rule as to whether the agreements were enforceable/wholly irredeemable, I took quite a lot of time formulating the Particulars of Claim which can be summarised as: Court judgment that Credit Card Agreement is improperly executed and/or fraudulently misrepresented and thereby irredeemably unenforceable; repayment of Payment Protection Insurance monies the Defendant has admitted mis-sold and thereafter unlawfully withheld, thereby receiving unjust enrichment by duplicated benefit on the Defendant’s own mistake in law and/or fact; rescission and/or discharge of disputed account balance or in the alternative reduction of said balance as restitutionary damages for contractual breaches and contraventions, breaches and violations of law and governing principles; removal of default entries with Credit Reference Agencies in order to put Claimant in position would have been in before the mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance; restitution for escalating debt collection practices and breaches of Data Protection Act 1998. HOWEVER the Court keep sending the forms back with different things wrong with them. I have rung and tried to find out what the problem is and their main problem seems to now be that an N1 claim form is only for money claims and the rest of it should be taken out. Though it is all one claim and we are ultimately talking about money. They say the value of the claim should ONLY be the money I actually want back and interest thereon, not for example the account balance I'm disputing - while you can certainly argue that it's not money coming back, it's certainly a monetary value of monies written off and I think it has to be included in a monetary value ascribed to the claim. When I asked what form I should be completing, their answer is to get legal advice. Which I of course have had.Tis like a hamster ball. So, any ideas on what claim form I should be completing? It's all one matter with two sides in dispute upon which a court has to make a judgement in law, and I would guess that the value of the claim is mainly to do with the track it'll be heard on. At one point, she said courts only deal with money claims - huh?]Thanks for any advice. Cheers Claire

Hey Some guidance please. I'm at the stage of issuing claims against AA Visa/Loan - both of which have improperly executed agreements, and both of which included Payment Protection Insurance which AA have admitted was mis-sold but which monies they've held onto against the disputed account. Having got nowhere with the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman very specifically said that a court had to rule as to whether the agreements were enforceable/wholly irredeemable, I took quite a lot of time formulating the Particulars of Claim which can be summarised as: Court judgment that Credit Card Agreement is improperly executed and/or fraudulently misrepresented and thereby irredeemably unenforceable; repayment of Payment Protection Insurance monies the Defendant has admitted mis-sold and thereafter unlawfully withheld, thereby receiving unjust enrichment by duplicated benefit on the Defendant’s own mistake in law and/or fact; rescission and/or discharge of disputed account balance or in the alternative reduction of said balance as restitutionary damages for contractual breaches and contraventions, breaches and violations of law and governing principles; removal of default entries with Credit Reference Agencies in order to put Claimant in position would have been in before the mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance; restitution for escalating debt collection practices and breaches of Data Protection Act 1998. HOWEVER the Court keep sending the forms back with different things wrong with them. I have rung and tried to find out what the problem is and their main problem seems to now be that an N1 claim form is only for money claims and the rest of it should be taken out. Though it is all one claim and we are ultimately talking about money. They say the value of the claim should ONLY be the money I actually want back and interest thereon, not for example the account balance I'm disputing - while you can certainly argue that it's not money coming back, it's certainly a monetary value of monies written off and I think it has to be included in a monetary value ascribed to the claim. When I asked what form I should be completing, their answer is to get legal advice. Which I of course have had... ]Tis like a hamster ball. So, any ideas on what claim form I should be completing? It's all one matter with two sides in dispute upon which a court has to make a judgement in law, and I would guess that the value of the claim is mainly to do with the track it'll be heard on. At one point, she said courts only deal with money claims - huh? Thanks for any advice. Cheers Claire

Good luck. Have they provided anything to you at all? The one thing I found which would be useful, to me at least, was on the thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html#post1868913 It's about how to request the court for disclosure of documents under the requirement of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 says Quote: 7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement: (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. I was thinking I might have to play around with to do Particulars of Claim. Guess it would be a useful summary for what to say to the court? I'm like you, until they confirm to a court that what they've sent me (which is unenforceable) is the only agreement, then I'm worried they'll suddenly get their act together and produce one! Though I'm still unclear as to whether, if and when a court deems an agreement unenforceable, they're then required to remove all record of that agreement - with credit reference agencies, their own records, etc. ! The stuff I found on CAG about the date of agreements was that: Section 127(3) was repealed in the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which came into force in January 2007. Therefore, the enforceability of any agreement entered into after 2006 cannot be challenged by Section 127. This doesn't mean that such an agreement is necessarily enforceable but it does mean that its enforceability must be argued on its own merits. The enforceability of an agreement that is not properly executed, signed after 6 April 2007 and not having the debtor's signature and the prescribed terms in the same document may not be enforceable but it's enforceability has to be argued on a case-by-case basis (you cannot use section 127(3)). Don't know if that's of any use to you or not, but anyway, best of luck. Cheers Claire

Hi Thanks - that thread has been really useful. I used it to send a secondary request to both the lenders and then the debt collection agencies they sold the disputed accounts to, though any other agreement still hasn't been forthcoming from anyone. It's going to be pretty useful once it comes to court, but it doesn't really give me the info I need for Particulars of Claim sadly. Ta for the advice though, Cheers Claire

Eyup I would guess that they haven't got another agreement but am hoping a court case would force them to produce whatever they've got, just in case. I stopped paying in October after they'd been in default of the CCA request for three months, they then defaulted it, told them it was disputed but passed to the debt collection agency anyway, whereupon I used the CAG template in corresponding with the DCA saying there was no enforceable agreement and suggested they pass it back to MBNA. But haven't heard since. I don't particularly have any worries about them taking me to court, fairly sure of my ground in terms of it being wholly unenforceable, just wondered if anyone had a template for me to counterclaim when MBNA take me to court. Cheers Claire

Hey Sorry, don't have a scanner but I've checked it all out pretty thoroughly against the guidance and it's an application form, it doesn't have both signatures on (predates the repeal of the 1974 legislation) nor does it have all the prescribed terms, right to cancel, etc. They've been absolutely clear that this is the proper agreement, though in fact I have a different one with terms and conditions supplied at the time and that doesn't have any of those either! Ta Claire

Hey Yep, that's all in writing. I don't want to complain to the Ombudsman about them without being sure of my ground really, what other TStandards say/do differently, in case it's them that's right! Cheers though Claire

Hey Cheers, they are indeed a waste of space and time; won't be bothering with them for any of the others, that's for sure. Oh yeah yeah yeah, when you open that agreement and see it's unsigned/doesn't have prescribed terms in, you just wanna dance... Ta Claire

Hey The latest update is that, despite the account being disputed, MBNA has sold the disputed debt on, despite these being disputed and despite no enforceable CCA being provided. The Ombudsman has already said in the case of MBNA that a court must rule on enforceability. I used the CAG templates to send a letter to the debt collection agency and at the mo am still awaiting their response. So, the first thing is that I need to prepare my response for court as I think either MBNA/the debt collection agency will now go for a county court judgement against me. I want to counterclaim to get a ruling on the unenforceability of the agreement, so any particulars of claim for how to counterclaim for this would be really useful please. There's also missold PPI and charges on there so I would be wanting to also ask for these back. The second issue is that, as per the guidance, I reported MBNA to Trading Standards for unfair trading. WY Trading Standards have a different take on the whole unfair trading thing to what other CAGers seem to be getting from their local Trading Standards, and it'd be useful if people could post their responses from their Trading Standards which DO agree with the CAG templates. The gist of WY Trading Standards final response in refusing to take up unfair trading with MBNA is; - creditor not prevented from enforcing a debt for which they've not provided the original executed agreement even when the account is clearly in dispute, when MBNA have been told the debt is in dispute and should not according to the Banking Code and ICO be taking enforcement action on a disputed debt. - CCA 1974 repealed, so MBNA don't need to provide a properly executed agreement and don't need to have both signatures nor prescribed terms on a CCA for it to be regarded as properly executed - even though the agreement was before the repeal and so should have been properly executed with signatures and prescribed terms at the time. - say that I appear to be disputing the collection methods, not that I owe the money; when I'm disputing what's owed because the agreement is unenforceable. - don't seem to understand that what I'm complaining about is the fact that they're taking enforcement action on disputed accounts when the companies have subscribed to the Banking Code which means they've breached this Code which is contractual. - with regard to MBNA's unfair trading, there are no breaches of legislation (!!!) on which Trading Standards have any role. Any guidance? Seems ridiculous to me that other Trading Standards are wholly supportive when WY Trading Standards don't agree at all with CAG's position. Thanks and cheers, Claire Meebroke, can you please let me have the link to your thread with the Trading Standards stuff on it? Ta muchly. Thanks and cheers Claire

Hey I'm at the stage where a number of my creditors are likely to take me to court over disputed debts where there's been no true copy of the CCA provided. In fact, I'm probably hoping to come to court with it because then they'll have to produce beforehand what they claim to be the actual executed agreement! However, I could do with some help if anyone has particulars of claim as a counterclaim to them pursuing me for the monies. Please please please. Thanks and cheers Claire

Hey Could do with some advice please, chaps and chapettes. Following the CCA route with a number of my creditors, all of which have done the blank reconstituted thing with new unsigned (and previously not shared with me!) terms and conditions. Using the CAG templates, thought I'd got my head round it. Because they've not given me proper copies, refusing to pay any of them without them providing properly executed CCA. And now MBNA and AA have both sold the disputed debts on, despite these being disputed and despite no enforceable CCA being provided. The Ombudsman has already said in the case of MBNA that a court must rule on enforceability. The issue is that, as per the guidance, I reported MBNA to Trading Standards for unfair trading. As I've previously posted on another thread, WY Trading Standards have a different take on the whole unfair trading thing to what other CAGers seem to be getting from their local Trading Standards, and it'd be useful if people could post their responses from their Trading Standards which DO agree with the CAG templates. The gist of WY Trading Standards final response in refusing to take up unfair trading with MBNA is; - creditor not prevented from enforcing a debt for which they've not provided the original executed agreement even when the account is clearly in dispute, when MBNA have been told the debt is in dispute and should not according to the Banking Code and ICO be taking enforcement action on a disputed debt. - CCA 1974 repealed, so MBNA don't need to provide a properly executed agreement and don't need to have both signatures nor prescribed terms on a CCA for it to be regarded as properly executed - even though the agreement was before the repeal and so should have been properly executed with signatures and prescribed terms at the time. - say that I appear to be disputing the collection methods, not that I owe the money; when I'm disputing what's owed because the agreement is unenforceable. - don't seem to understand that what I'm complaining about is the fact that they're taking enforcement action on disputed accounts when the companies have subscribed to the Banking Code which means they've breached this Code which is contractual. Any guidance? Seems ridiculous to me that other Trading Standards are wholly supportive when WY Trading Standards don't agree at all with CAG's position. Thanks and cheers, Claire