I made a significant number of PPI calculations based on the FOS guidelines: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html My experience is that most of the banks simply ignore the FOS recommendations and I referred those to the FOS. If you do the calculation correctly, it usually reduces the outstanding amount to a 1/3 because you have to get back the following: 1. The premiums 2. Interest on these premiums 3. All theft charges as a direct result of these premiums and interest 4. Interest on these theft charges 5. Interest on the intereston the premiums and theft charges. 6. If at any time you have a credit saldo (after deduting the above), 8% single interest Part of the guidelines states that they have to provide you with a statement and explanation on how they derived their refunded amounts. If they ignore these recommendations it is almost certain the FOS will instruct them to pay you between £200 and £300 for distress and inconvenience because they knew (or should have known) better. It is some time ago but I am sure you can still confirm whether they have done it correctly. I will be able to help you in deciding that. There is also the issue of them issuing the insurance without you applying for it (is that correct?). Honestly, them taking the premiums is fraud and I have 2 cases where I will try going down that route if they do not play ball. I have a good argument for credit cards why you can claim they deceived you when you didn't applied for it. P.S. I haven't read all the post and do not know whether I duplicate stuff, if so, please ignore that. I can also elaborate on it if you would like some more info.

The silence is deafening! I sent a follow up which they complely ignored as well!! My wife is selling some property in her native country which could provide us with some funding. I am waiting for that and then I will take these cretins to court, I do not want to wait for the ICO. Once legal proceedings start they will have to explain why they think they are above the law and ignoring the DPA and CCA!

It will be advisable to remove your personal details from these emails!

This part takes the cake! If a customer does become aggressive we would instruct you to leave the address immediately and return the account to the office. Encounters of an aggressive nature are very few and far between. Does telling him to go and multiply accounts for being aggressive or do it needs "beefing" up?

Next time ask the clown how on earth will they comply with pre-action protocol if they "do not do that type of thing"? Maybe he does not realsie that he will not be able to go to court unless he does "that type of thing"!! Anyway, Carter HATES resistance, resist it and he cannot run away quick enough!!!

Thanks for the clarification. Scottish Power is my current supplier and there are no hassles. It is only Southern Electric which I cannot get so far as to send me an invoice for the correct timeframe. I always knew them as Southern Electric and when they started to talk about Scottish and Southern Electric I became confused.

Received e letter from these idiots today as well representing Scottish and Southern Energy. I told Southern Electric that they invoiced me at the new property as well as the old property for an over lapping period. Looks that it is something they cannot comprehend, so tough luck for them, will just take longer for them to get the amount I really owes. I thought they were Southern Electric, is Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power the same company? Seems I cannot figure this one out. I see these bottom feeders added an "administration" fee for £112.20. I wish them the best of luck in their endeavour collecting it!!

Non compliance with section 77-79 of the CCA 1974 went from: After 30 they committed an ofence to They can demand payment on the account. They can add further interest or any charges to the account. They can pass the account to a third party. They can register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency. They can issue a default notice related to the account. They can continue to harass you They can continue to issue threats The point of actually taking you to court hasn't been eroded YET. Off course, YOU CAN continue to ignore them!

I do not believe they are.

McGuffik is just another off the recent "erosion" judgments, contunuing to erode the beauty of the original CCA 1974. It is all about what enforcements means, they concluded that the creditor can continue to tharsh your credit files, the DCA can continue their harrassment and threats of court action, etc. when they do not have complied with your CCA request. It is suppose to cover the "temporary un-enforceable cases" where they could not get the CCA in 12 days but will have it in say 3 months. Unless empty threats and credit files entries bother you, it is meaningless because they cannot take you to court until they comply, i.e. cough up the CCA (confirmed in this case).

I can suggest a letter such as this. [Your address] [Their address] [Date] Account Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx ****NOTICE UNDER Civil Procedure RULES*** Re:− Account/Reference Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx20xx and response to my Data Subject Access Request. You will be aware that since the introduction of the General Practice Direction (PD) on Pre-action Conduct introduced in April 2009, compliance with the general pre-action protocol in now compulsory, even in cases which will be most likely be allocated to the small claims track. This allows the court to take into account the conduct of parties at all stages of litigation before the start of any court case. In every case where the matter is likely to be dispute (as in this instance), the court will expect the parties to have exchanged information before starting a court case and to have given the other party a change to settle the claim. If this is not done the offending party may be asked an explanation and ordered to pay costs. Furthermore, the court may also suspend a court case until steps which ought to have been taken are taken. In the letter from your Solicitors, [salams details here] letter, dated xx/xx/20xx you threaten that you will take legal action should I fail to comply with your demands. As a direct result of this threat been made by you I made a Data Subject Request towards you on xx/xx/20xx regarding this account, requesting you to provide me with the information detailed in that letter. Unfortunately I believe there are some discrepancies in your response and therefore I believe that you haven’t fully complied with my request. I make the following request pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules (Pre action protocols and Part 31.16). I respectfully request that you provide me by return a copy of the following documents: [all outstanding documents you require, i.e. underwriting sheets] I do not view this as an unreasonable request given that by supplying the document which I have asked for, will allow me to assess if my case has merit and will help to resolve matters possibly without the need to involve the court and will undoubtedly save costs on both sides. I look forward to your reply and would ask for a response by 4pm on xx/xx/2010, 21 days from the date of this letter. Furthermore, on the xx/xx/20xx I also informed you that this account is in dispute as a result of [include your reasons], but you also failed to respond. I re-iterate that fact and am looking forward to your response in the near future. Kindest Regards, cc [salams details] You will have to check whether the sequence of events are correct, making the SAR after been threatened by Salams?, etc. Send it to Welcome and a copy to Salams. It is just a suggestion or you can wait for postjj.

OK. got it now, its about multiple agreements. It is difficult one but I do believe they have to separate the payment amounts, terms , etc. I do have such an agreement where it is one document but they separate these terms correctly (HSBC loan and I believe that one is enforceable) by this one fails on that as well. That is my interpretation. I have read a number of threats about Welcome and I believe the general feeling is that their agreements is useless. I do believe you can tell them to do something else with themselves.

I saw the same court case twice, the Carey case (Judge Waksman), so I think they qouted only the one case. This was a case end of last state year basically telling they can do what they are doing providing they include the prescribed terms when you took out the agreement. It also states that they must provide you with the the current terms, therefore all the junk. Providing they have send a statement of account with it, then they have complied. BUT the case also made it clear, should it go to trial, they will have to cough up the original signed agreement! Made you wonder, why all the trouble reconstructing all this if they could simply provided a copy of the real thing? Whether it is un-enforceable only depends on the prescribed Terms in the original agreement (pages 2-4), they must be correct. The current ones is unimportant (pages 7-8 I am a bit unsure given it is that old but the Prescribed Terms is completely out of line with the requirements. Unless there were a change in the early 2000's, then they have a useless piece of paper. I will see whether I can get something about that later unless someone else can shed some light on that.

I believe it will be un-enforceable. I am also pretty sure that they will not try to go to court as soon as they realise they are not going to get a default judgment. How you want to handle this is up to you but these things will be useful stuff to help you getting what you want to get out of it. Despite this, they have to take what you offer, if you offer £20 a month, and it is all you can afford, then no judge will order you to pay more, and they know it. They are just hoping YOU do not know that!! Just tell them what you can afford to pay, they can do nothing about it.

This agreement will be un-enforceable for more than one reason. One reason is the missing Total Amount Payable. All the breaches above could be a result of a wrong interest rate but that will make the APR wrong as well (more correctly, difficult to determine!). Here is a thread explaining what the wrong APR and missing Total Amount Payable means, something to be used in an argument. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?240088-Urgent-Welcome-Finance-Trouble BUTin your case (pre April 2007), one item wrong and it is un-enforceable. The April 2007 issue is the fact that they removed section 127. There is case law to help with the fact that one item missing = un-enforceable. I am a unsure what you mean by section 18, can you elaborate?

No surprise, If it is 2005 then it is un-enforceable, they changed the agreement towards the end of 2006, so if it was 2006, then it depends... You say you cannot find your agreement, meaning you do have it? Would be a good idea to send CrapOne a CCA request because they are hiding about the Carey judgement to come with false reconstructions, comparing their reconstruction to the real agreement could be fun!!

Well, ... I do not what to say, I made calculations based on that and it seems 55.55% on £3243.29 over 3 years (36 months) ain't £2857.63!! Correct me if I am wrong! The real interest rate should be 29.37% and therefore their agreement is way out!! I can only assume they entered the wrong percentage, do calculate the interest and see whether you agree. Anyway, here is the assessment based on that:

Is it Capital One? If so, when did you sign the agreement? I will be able to tell you whether the agreement is enforceable, which could influence the way you play it.

My Carter/Fred collection is growing at a steady rate! This is one set of them: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20063&d=1279541270

I have to admit, Fred/Carter are my favourite outfit! I do not understand why people do not like them! Carter is a c@ward who hates been challenged, challenge him and he runs!! Simple!

Did you post Crap Ones attempted reonstruction? I did not see it. I did see such an attempt before which were obviously wrong. They stiched the first page with the signature to the pages with the prescribed terms. The problem with that attempt was that the original agreement were signed when there theft charges were still £20 but the prescribed terms page showed £12 theft charges, obviously not the right one been stiched. The prescribed terms in the agreements where these charges are £20 is unenforceable (therefore this tactic from these flies). When did you take out the agreement? I will be able to let you know what the prescribed terms should be. Anyway Carter DO NOT go to court. If he cannot get a judgment by default, he cannot run away quickly enough!! The moment he gets chalenged, he runs!! I am waiting for the last letter of discontuinence from the court then I will post my clollection of Carter/Fred letters containg: No longer representing the client. Account returned to client Case discontinued Got around 4 or 5 of them!

Is the Interest Rate 55.55% and the APR 58.51%? it is a bit difficult to make out.

I can do a similar breakdown for you later when I got the time: http://s928.photobucket.com/albums/ad125/lord_tiger_putin/?action=view&current=Welcome.png Will see whether they got their APR correct this time!! The agreement should have "Total amount payable". It is a pre April 2007 agrement, which is good! This is therefore NOT relevant!! "Section 127(3) of the Act has been repealed by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, therefore agreements entered into on or after 6 April 2007 cannot be held to be 'irredeemably unenforceable'."

I saw that a DCA snooped around on my credit file with experience. It is an Unrecorded Enquiry but I believe they are not allowed to do that without my permission?

Received it from Black Horse with the statement that it should be paid immediately. Thought it was hilarious:rockon:, seeing that I believe they are actually owing me money!! Wonder whether it is connected with the £50.00 phone handling charges I am pursuing their pals, Close Assistance?