Not sure how to change the heading or to contact the site helper?

Hello Thank you for your help in this, how do I find out who the site helper is ?

just occured to me that in 1998 I was not even working! thats got to be fuel for the fire. This will be in on monday, I need to attach the excel sheets and pay £30 is that right? Yes tomterm, I think I have done everything, I have followed through with the ombudsman, who could not investigate and the traiding standards have the information at the moment. Do I have anything to lose? My husband is in hospital so won't be able to show it to anyone really, I was just going to suck it and see!! I feel really stupid that I have been paying the insurance but if I did buy it over the phone I was not made aware of the ins and outs. I have asked twice for SAR and not been provided with anything that says I agreed to buy insurance. what do ya think?

Thank you thank you thank you I have no reason but to go for it, they are sitting so smug I have to have a go. thank you also hell, fingers crossed

help with court wording please My husband is in hospital and I really don't know if I am doing the right thing taking shop direct to court, I don't even understand some of the things I have written. Can anyone help me with the wording. I really would rather not look a plonker for them. (thread in PPI 'littlewoods admit no CCA') PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 04/07/1999 Account numbers Kays-XXXXXXX Littlewoods – XXXXXXXX 2. On several occasions the clamant has been mislead and aledgedly agreed to purchase from the Defendant Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") Agent Balance Care was originally applied to the claimants Littlewoods account in September 1998. Account cover plus was applied to the claimants Kays account in August 1999 The defendant states (letter 25/07/07) that the insurance was upgraded on a number of occasions. Extra Care in May 1999 and Extra Care 500 in January 2001 and extra care advantage in January 2004. The claimant cancelled the above insurance when the claimant was made aware of it by its appearance on a statement from the defendant. The Claimant maintains that no agreement for insurance to be added to the accounts was made with full knowledge of the purpose of the insurance Claimant claims that the insurance on the littlewoods account was cancelled on the 26/11/2005 when it appeared on a statement, when cancelled the claimant made it clear to the defendant that the insurance was not appropriate to the claimants needs. Further insurance as above was subsequently added to the accounts without agreement or understanding by the claimant. The claimant submitted requests for copies of the original signed agreements for both accounts under section 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. On the 25/07/07 the defendant stated in a letter their inability to supply a signed and dated credit agreement for both the claimants credit accounts. 3. The Claimant contends that: a) The Claimant did not request the insurance. The claimant maintains that the defendant misled the claimant. i) The Insurance imposed upon the Claimant were neither defined nor explained. ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant would never be in the position to make a claim due to employment with the local authority. b) The Claimant contends that the Defendant fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant contends that that Insurers are under an obligation to ensure the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and contends the Defendant has not fulfilled this requirement. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant also contends that the Defendant never once attempted to ascertain the Claimants’ position to assess whether such as product was suitable. If any assessment had taken place it should have been considered wholly unnecessary and unworthwhile. c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behaviour then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ mistake as to facts. d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; 4. Accordingly the Claimant asks: a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £803.29 plus 8% interest by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction. b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £803.29 by virtue of the Defendants’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant. c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £803.29 in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £803.29 d) Court costs; small claims route £30.00 e) The defendant ceases to process information about the Claimant f) The defendant removes negative entries/defaults to the claimants credit record. g) interest on the charges applied thereon to the Claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of 8 %. £253.07 The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance. The Claimant deems the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of insurance charges that were imposed upon the Claimant, they were not explained and were in fact mis-sold due to the Claimants employment situation. The defendant admitted on the 25/07/07 that no credit agreement exists and therefore cannot enforce the debt, The defendant is still processing the claimants information and directly contravening the claimants rights under the Data Protection Act 1988(s10) __________________ Won NatWest. Bank charges returned £2,500 November 2006 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Littlewoods April 2007 Ombudsman complaint July 2007 Littlewoods admit no CCA agreement Refuse to refund PPI Letter to TS August 2007 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Lloyds August 2007 CCa lloyds August 12th S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and CCa Halifax 12th Aug

My husband is in hospital and I really don't know if I am doing the right thing taking shop direct to court, I don't even understand some of the things I have written. Can anyone help me with the wording. I really would rather not look a plonker for them. (thread littlewoods admit no CCA) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 04/07/1999 Account numbers Kays-XXXXXXX Littlewoods – XXXXXXXX 2. On several occasions the clamant has been mislead and aledgedly agreed to purchase from the Defendant Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") Agent Balance Care was originally applied to the claimants Littlewoods account in September 1998. Account cover plus was applied to the claimants Kays account in August 1999 The defendant states (letter 25/07/07) that the insurance was upgraded on a number of occasions. Extra Care in May 1999 and Extra Care 500 in January 2001 and extra care advantage in January 2004. The claimant cancelled the above insurance when the claimant was made aware of it by its appearance on a statement from the defendant. The Claimant maintains that no agreement for insurance to be added to the accounts was made with full knowledge of the purpose of the insurance Claimant claims that the insurance on the littlewoods account was cancelled on the 26/11/2005 when it appeared on a statement, when cancelled the claimant made it clear to the defendant that the insurance was not appropriate to the claimants needs. Further insurance as above was subsequently added to the accounts without agreement or understanding by the claimant. The claimant submitted requests for copies of the original signed agreements for both accounts under section 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. On the 25/07/07 the defendant stated in a letter their inability to supply a signed and dated credit agreement for both the claimants credit accounts. 3. The Claimant contends that: a) The Claimant did not request the insurance. The claimant maintains that the defendant misled the claimant. i) The Insurance imposed upon the Claimant were neither defined nor explained. ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant would never be in the position to make a claim due to employment with the local authority. b) The Claimant contends that the Defendant fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant contends that that Insurers are under an obligation to ensure the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and contends the Defendant has not fulfilled this requirement. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant also contends that the Defendant never once attempted to ascertain the Claimants’ position to assess whether such as product was suitable. If any assessment had taken place it should have been considered wholly unnecessary and unworthwhile. c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behaviour then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ mistake as to facts. d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; 4. Accordingly the Claimant asks: a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £803.29 plus 8% interest by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction. b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £803.29 by virtue of the Defendants’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant. c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £803.29 in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £803.29 d) Court costs; small claims route £30.00 e) The defendant ceases to process information about the Claimant f) The defendant removes negative entries/defaults to the claimants credit record. g) interest on the charges applied thereon to the Claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of 8 %. £253.07 The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance. The Claimant deems the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of insurance charges that were imposed upon the Claimant, they were not explained and were in fact mis-sold due to the Claimants employment situation. The defendant admitted on the 25/07/07 that no credit agreement exists and therefore cannot enforce the debt, The defendant is still processing the claimants information and directly contravening the claimants rights under the Data Protection Act 1988(s10)

My husband is in hospital and I really don't know if I am doing the right thing taking shop direct to court, I don't even understand some of the things I have written. Can anyone help me with the wording. I really would rather not look a plonker for them. PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 04/07/1999 Account numbers Kays-XXXXXXX Littlewoods – XXXXXXXX 2. On several occasions the clamant has been mislead and aledgedly agreed to purchase from the Defendant Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") Agent Balance Care was originally applied to the claimants Littlewoods account in September 1998. Account cover plus was applied to the claimants Kays account in August 1999 The defendant states (letter 25/07/07) that the insurance was upgraded on a number of occasions. Extra Care in May 1999 and Extra Care 500 in January 2001 and extra care advantage in January 2004. The claimant cancelled the above insurance when the claimant was made aware of it by its appearance on a statement from the defendant. The Claimant maintains that no agreement for insurance to be added to the accounts was made with full knowledge of the purpose of the insurance Claimant claims that the insurance on the littlewoods account was cancelled on the 26/11/2005 when it appeared on a statement, when cancelled the claimant made it clear to the defendant that the insurance was not appropriate to the claimants needs. Further insurance as above was subsequently added to the accounts without agreement or understanding by the claimant. The claimant submitted requests for copies of the original signed agreements for both accounts under section 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. On the 25/07/07 the defendant stated in a letter their inability to supply a signed and dated credit agreement for both the claimants credit accounts. 3. The Claimant contends that: a) The Claimant did not request the insurance. The claimant maintains that the defendant misled the claimant. i) The Insurance imposed upon the Claimant were neither defined nor explained. ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant would never be in the position to make a claim due to employment with the local authority. b) The Claimant contends that the Defendant fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant contends that that Insurers are under an obligation to ensure the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and contends the Defendant has not fulfilled this requirement. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. The Claimant also contends that the Defendant never once attempted to ascertain the Claimants’ position to assess whether such as product was suitable. If any assessment had taken place it should have been considered wholly unnecessary and unworthwhile. c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behaviour then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ mistake as to facts. d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; 4. Accordingly the Claimant asks: a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £803.29 plus 8% interest by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction. b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £803.29 by virtue of the Defendants’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant. c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £803.29 in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £803.29 d) Court costs; small claims route £30.00 e) The defendant ceases to process information about the Claimant f) The defendant removes negative entries/defaults to the claimants credit record. g) interest on the charges applied thereon to the Claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of 8 %. £253.07 The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance. The Claimant deems the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of insurance charges that were imposed upon the Claimant, they were not explained and were in fact mis-sold due to the Claimants employment situation. The defendant admitted on the 25/07/07 that no credit agreement exists and therefore cannot enforce the debt, The defendant is still processing the claimants information and directly contravening the claimants rights under the Data Protection Act 1988(s10)

Don't panic, sure you will be fine. this is what ipsea is saying What if the school offers to write on my behalf? The Headteacher is able to write and ask for a 'statutory assessment', but if you do it yourself you can be sure that the request has definitely been made, and you will know when it has been made. However, if the Headteacher is willing, you could ask him or her to write a letter which supports your parental application. Who should I write to? Write to the top person at the LEA, usually called the Chief Education Officer or the Director of Education. You can find out what the top person is called in your LEA by asking at the school or the local library. When should I hear back? The LEA must reply within six weeks. Remember: Always ask in writing. Keep a copy of your letter. Make a note of the six week deadline for the LEA’s reply. Ring IPSEA if you don’t get a reply after six weeks or if you want further advice. Model letter Dear Sir or Madam, (child’s name) (date of birth) Request for formal assessment I am writing as the parent of the above child to request an assessment of his special educational needs under the 1996 Education Act. (child’s name) attends ..................... school. I believe that (child’s name)'s special educational needs are as follows: My reasons for believing that the school cannot on their own make the provision required to meet my child’s needs are: I understand that you are required by law to reply to this request within six weeks and that if you refuse I will be able to appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal. Yours sincerely, Does anyone else have any information? it might be worth sticking the letter in to ensure you have crossed the T's. Ipsea site does not say that you can't appeal if the school has asked on their own. Sorry if I gave you a fright but its best to check everything.

Its great stuff when things get moving, Its all about pushing the right buttons. Just checking, did you write the request for assessment yourself as well as the school? Its just that you don't have the same rights to appeal if you havent. Good luck

ZUBO seems to have massive amounts of knowledge about CCA's.

My letter is clear that they don't do CCa's and would not peruse the debt, This will be there biggest error yet if they are pulling a fast one!!! Have you seen the CCa workshop here? It might be helpful, I am sure they would like to know whats going on with you anyway. I have an appointment next week with TS, I will let you know if they are the same with me. Littlewoods did try to mislead me with a made up CCA and I know they have done this with others, surely this deception does not do them any good!

yep think its gone on long enough, 14 days to court. What about TS should i still send the letter that you helped with? thanks

Thanks Ell Thats really good advice

Hello Hell, do you think this short note is ok before I got to court? Also what did you think about the TS letter? Love to hear your opinion, Dear Sir/Madam, You have not replied to my letter of the 17th August and I have now forwarded a complaint to traiding Standards, copy enclosed. Without further notice I reserve the right apply to the small claims court for full refund of my PPI payments, plus interest and court costs. Can you please ensure that you have complied competly with my reqest for information under subject access request. As yet you have not provided my with any proof that I agreed to buying PPI. If you have anything please supply in the next 14 days. Yours Faithfully

No not the only debt, my husband had two credit cards about 15,000 and another joint loan that I knew about agreed and signed for 13,000. I have sent for cca's and SAR so will wait and see. I just hope I have all the facts now, I have signed up with payplan and moved bank accounts. I did get charges back from natwest £2500. My mortgage is huge and I think I am going to try to move, down size as we are only paying our interest at the moment. I am really scared to make the wrong decisions. I feel ok now I am in control and have the facts but will need some marriage counseling lol