Mr. H -v- SLC (now possibly Smith Lawson as well)

[Mr. H]

Forgive me if this is a bit long and convoluted. I'll try to be as brief as possible

 

April 2006: I contacted SLC to advise you of my change of address.

 

April/May 2006: I contacted SLC again as I had not received my deferment pack. At this time I was advised that despite my previous contact, my address details had not been updated. Following this conversation I did however receive a deferment pack.

 

May 2006: I returned the completed deferment application and attached the necessary wage slips to verify my earnings.

 

June/July 2006: SLC return my wage slips to me.

 

November 2006: Westcott Credit Services advise me of an outstanding debt of £307.18.

 

January 2007: I wrote to Westcot adviseing the course of events (above). This was in fact after numerous telephone conversations in which they either gave me bad advise or referred me to the wrong people.

 

March 2007: SLC start wring to me again chasing arrears for since May 2006.

 

All letters are replied to, and yesterday:

 

28th April 2007: Letter received (2nd class) from Smith Lawson dated 23rd April, demanding payment of arrears of £401.62 (including various charges). Also stating that I should respond to the letter within seven days else they with request that their client terminate the agreement and proceeds with action for recovery of the full balance.

 

I’m really not sure what to do. I don’t want to telephone them tomorrow, only to have them mess me about. I’d rather write to them, reminding them of the course of events, and enclosing a copy of my last letter which I sent less than 2 weeks ago. However I am worried that in doing that I will have exceeded the seven days that they have given me to respond.

 

This is the draft which I propose to issue:

 

 

My Ref: 91*********

 

Thank you for your letter of 23rd April 2007. You may not be aware that I have written to your colleagues at the Student Loans Company, as well as your previous agent Westcot Credit Services, on a number of occasions over recent months.

 

I feel that I have addressed all matters in respect of your letter in my most recent letter to Angela Herbert of the Student Loans Company Correspondence Division. A copy of this letter is attached for your reference.

 

I remind you that I submitted a deferment application in May 2006. That wage slips were attached to that application. That despite Student Loans Company being able to return my wage slips, they appear to have contrived to lose the deferment application.

 

This is clearly a matter that has not been dealt with correctly by Student Loans Company last year. You may wish to refer this matter back to them in order that deferment can be applied correctly for the years 2006-07. I have copies of all letters I have written to Student Loans Company since 2006. Should you require sight of them, I will be happy to send you copies.

 

For you information, I received your letter dated 23rd April 2007 on Saturday 28th April. For correspondence requiring such prompt attention you may wish to ensure that in future letters requiring such prompt attention are despatched on the same day that they are dated, additionally they are posted under first class cover.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Mr. H

 

 

Right now I'm more concerned about the arrears which they seem incapable of sorting. There are £40 worth of charges, and I propose to be going after those once the arrears/deferrment is sorted.

 

Any advise regarding course of action/wording of letters/what to expect would be much appreciated

[Mr. H]

Oh yeah -

 

All my loans ere taken out between 1991 and 1993

[CAGisforME]

The way I understand it, despite your letter telling them you had moved, SLC did not change your address and therefore your deferment papers were late reaching you.

 

(Check this forum out - LOTS of people have been having this problem)

 

Then they accepted your deferment and so it's the charges/arrears for the period you weren't deferred for that they are chasing you for.

 

There are two ways to look at this and checking out the "Debt Collectors forum" for ways of dealing with these bottom feeders is a good start.

 

1. I think you need to send a CCA request to the DCA that are dealing with this. This will cost you £1, and they should then produce your signed agreements and all other paperwork on ALL of their systems, including an up to date statement. They have 12 days to respond. Once that time limit is up the debt is unenforceable, once a further 30 days go by they have committed a criminal act.

 

This reason I advise this is that they will probably not have the relevant documentation and therefore will pass you back to the SLC.

 

The information is excellent as it may show that your agreements are unenforceable and will also give you some breathing space as you can state that the debt is in dispute until they produce it.

 

 

2. Send an FULL SAR to SLC. (This will cost you £10) tell them that you want ALL information on ALL their systems. They will have 40 days to respond and again, you can state you are in dispute until the information is produced.

 

Again this will give you valuable information.

 

I'm a firm believer that these two acts will 1. Ensure that you have all the relevant information to hand. 2. Grab you some breathing space. 3. Potentially get the DCA off your back (they don't like folks who know the law and use it against them) and 4. Should clear up what you owe and to whom.

 

I hope that helps.

 

[Zimmie]

I totally agree with CAGisforME. At the time you took out your student loans they were regulated by The CCA 1974. Will be very interesting to see if they come up with the agreements. If they don't and come back with the 'we don't keep records that old' .... well that's their problem. If they are still outstanding, they should keep them!

[Mr. H]

The way I understand it, despite your letter telling them you had moved, SLC did not change your address and therefore your deferment papers were late reaching you.

 

Not quite

 

The deferrment forms did reach me (eventually), and I submitted them on time (give or take a couple of weeks).

 

The problem is that despite their being able to return my payslips (with a covering letter), they claim never to have received the actual defferment application (that the pay slips were stapled to).

 

I agree with the stuff about the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) & CCA, and will get those sorted ASAP.

 

Cheers for the prompt reply!!!

[CAGisforME]

The fact that you have the covering letter with your payslips etc proves that they got your deferment, in my opinion, as you would have no other reason to send them to SLC in the first place.

 

If they were on time - you don't owe them any arrears etc

If they were two weeks late (for instance) - you would owe them the payments that should have been made for this period ONLY, provided you had deferred for the rest of the loan period.

 

Hit them with an SAR and wait to see what you get back.

 

In the meantime check out the Debt Collection forum for ways to deal with the bottom feeders. (I suggest a letter stating you will only deal with them in writing to kick off with and go from there - after which time if they call you again either hang up or tell them you will only discuss in writing, oh, and that you are recording the call - that's always a good way to get THEM to terminate the call )

 

Keep us informed as you go along and someone will be about to help you with any next stage.

 

[CAGisforME]

Just as a little "aside".

 

Don't bother trying to discuss anything with the SLC over the phone either. I can promise you I know how they work.

 

Because your statement will reflect that you owe them money they will NOT discuss much with you until they have hauled you over the coals for the payments they deem to be outstanding and - more often than not - will refuse to put you through to someone more reasonable (ie a Manager/Supervisor).

 

When I had this problem I refused POINT BLANK to discuss my loans over the phone and told them, when they rang me, that if they continued to do so i would report them to the Police and other relevant authorities for harrassment.

 

Despite a few "standard garbage" responses, eventually they got the message and I started to get "human being" response letters to my queries.

 

(I recently spoke with the SLC to get through to the person dealing with my "write off" claim - due to retirement - and was told by the muppet in the call centre that they don't write off the loans for ANY reason - YES they do - that they can't defer the loan for more than a year - YES they can (mine's deferred for 3 years) and that I HAD to talk to her about the arrears - Which had just been written off by a supervisor. She gave up eventually and put me through to the person I needed. I now have a direct number for that person, so that I don't have to go through that particularly ridiculous experience again! )

 

Keep Going - take control!!!

[Mr. H]

Don't bother trying to discuss anything with the SLC over the phone either. I can promise you I know how they work.

 

I've given up dealing with SLC over the phone - I've made sure they don't have my number for precicely the reasons you've stated.

 

In all the years since I graduated, SLC has cocked up more of my deferremnt applications than they've got right. In fact every year up to 2002 I had to have one argument or another with them about what they had (or hadn't) done.

 

I'm a bit worried this time as they are threatening me wth termination of the whole agreement.

 

I would have thought that receiving my payslips back with a covering letter (albeit an undated, with my name & address written on by hand, and a typed thank-you for submitting info), would have been enough of an indication that the form had been received.

[CAGisforME]

To Be Honest (But don't take my word for it!) I doubt they will terminate the whoel agreement.

 

They have threatened me with this several times including 3 years when they couldn't find me because of a messy divorce and an ex who deliberately wouldn't tell them my new address. (Oh, and they ignore my change of address letter too!)

 

There are so any people on this site with problems with deferment that I can only advise that in future, if you are unlucky enough to have to deal with these "people", then send everything Recorded Delivery and chase them up constantly until you have your deferment notice in your hot little hand. (They would do the same - so play them at their own game)

 

CCA the Debt Collection lot that are chasing you. I'll take a small wager that they'll pass it straight back to SLC.

 

Meanwhile SAR the SLC and see what they come up with. Make sure it's a full SAR and that should give you transcripts of all your calls, letters received and sent etc etc. Building your case nicely!!

 

Keep EVERYTHING they send. Report back once you have it and I'm sure there will be help available. Don't worry about their silly little threats!

 

Once you have CCAd the Debt Collector and SARd the SLC the debt is officially in Dispute. They aren't allowed to terminate the agreement in these circumstances and IF they do, it just adds to your case.

 

[emmaf01]

I also recommend starting each letter in capital letters, THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW IN DISPUTE. And always sending by recorded delivery. I have learned from the past they are useless.

[Mr. H]

CCA the Debt Collection lot that are chasing you.

 

I've just come back from holiday, and I havn't donme this (mainly due to not being able to find a letter template)

 

Could someone please post a link (CCA 1974 version)

 

Forget the above, just found the necessary letter here

[emmaf01]

Good luck, Mr H- we are all in the same boat.

 

Don't forget to also do the SAR- so you can claim back the unlawful charges applied to your account as well.

[Mr. H]

I had a reply to my CCA 1974 request today.

Of course they’ve sent me the wrong paperwork!!!

 

On all their letters to me (including the covering letter received today) they’ve quoted a reference with the prefix 91, I presume on the basis that this loan was first taken out diring academic year 1991-92. However the copy of the agreement they’ve actually sent me agreement is dated March 1993 and the reference has the prefix 92.

 

Should I write back to Smith Lawson saying ‘you’ve sent me the wrong paperwork’ or is there another letter I should send off in their direction?

 

Oh besides that, at the bottom of the covering letter they say that all enquiries should now be made to NCO Financial Services in Preston. Who are they???

[emmaf01]

NCO are a debt collection agency. Which means they've passed on your debt to them.

 

As for the wrongly dated agreement, time for a letter stating that the agreement is wrong (state why) and telling them that you will not deal with anyone other than them. Tell them that the account is in dispute.

[Mr. H]

Over the last few weeks my case has been passed from one organisation to another like an unwanted birthday present.

 

It's got so complictated I've paraphrased everything, and posted the story (with copies of letters) on my own web-site here I'm thinking about e-mailing links to all the companies that have have written to me about this.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Mr. H

[Thepower]

Wicked web site mate, well done

Would it possible to have a list of letter templates :

SARs

CAA

When they don’t reply to a CAA

Ect…..

I think that would help a lot of victims of the SLC

The CAA worked for me it put the debt in dispute, when I phoned the SLC to find out about illegal charges they said it would be UNLAWFUL for them to discusses my case as it could be viewed as them chasing the debt (music to one's ears)…

I think your problem is the “debt” has been passed to out side agents, by the look of the letters there just automated mail. DCA just don't give a S***T

What I would do is write to the SLC saying are you aware your collection agents are trying to collect an unlawfully, (because of the CAA) and you receive any more correspondence you report the SLC to the OFT

SLC hate the OFT as any complaints must be included in there annual report to the department of industry. Believe me statuary breaches don’t look good

[Mr. H]

I got my templates here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/students/50306-student-loan-company-general.html

 

To be honest with you , with regards the other stuff, it's been causing me an awful lot of stress, and the way I feel right now is that I have a sufficient defence to defend legal action against me.

 

On that basis I'm happy to receive their summons and sort it out that way

[emmaf01]

Sometimes you can just feel you're bashing your head against a brick wall.

 

I won, but have I seen a penny of the money they said they'd send me? Not yet!

[daveydavey]

Excellent site, many other people have similar problems relating to deferment, listed on this & other sites & also featured in national press articles - maybe you could post links to these on your site ? I could add some links here if interested.

 

My feeling is that they won't take you to Court, I was in receipt of Income support & disability living allowance due to long-term illness when they failed to process my deferment, several years later they are still to take me to Court, i have invited them to do so! They'd sooner try to harass people into submission then take people to Court where they would probably have their false claim dismissed & be at risk of a counterclaim for a) expenses b) stress caused by constant harassment based on a false claim c) defamation if a default notice has been placed on the borrower's credit file, due to the SLC's own maladministration.

 

So people end up in a situation where the SLC refuses to do the right thing & grant deferment when the borrower is entitled to it, hiding behind a 3 month restriction which only became Law around 1998? The borrower rightly believes they are entitled to deferment - the basic founding principle of student loans being that they are only repayable when the borrower is in receipt of 85% of national average earnings - so the 'account in arrears' situation never becomes resolved.

 

If their case for arrears is so strong, why don't they take borrowers entitled to deferment to Court ?

[daveydavey]

In fact, during a call i had from the SLC (Smith Lawson & Company - their 'collection division') a VERY aggressive man shouted at me to clear the arrears, i explained the account was in dispute, he insisted i pay the total of £190 (£130 arrears from 2004 when i was in receipt of Income Support & DLA for the whole of the deferment period & applied for deferment within the normal time limit which the Student Loans Company failed to process, & £60 charges = 45% of the arrears), I said to him " well take me to Court then, I'll defend it in Court" to which he replied (far more softly) "Ah well that's different", I put the phone down at that point. That was several months ago, i'm still waiting for the Summons / further threat of Legal action ! Bizarrely, i've had several 'silent, nuisance' calls from the student loans company since then, where i've answered & they've said nothing & put the phone down straight away! I've then dialled 1471 to find its the Student Loans Company number! Maybe its a new psychological collection tactic...

[Mr. H]

Great idea about the links daveydavey.

 

If anyone has any useful links my e-mail is from 'contact me' on the site. It might not be done straight away, as when I publish links I like to check them out first (make sure I'm not directing people to dodgey porn) and let the owner of the site I'm linking to know as well.

 

Does anyone think I ought to tell SLC and their 'friends' about my site?

[daveydavey]

a few links here (sure i've seen more, remember there are many more similar stories in the students section & other sections of the Consumer Action Group)

 

national press

 

Observer - under 'student hangover' Proving the SLC *can* use discretion & 'backdate' deferment for more than 3 months e.g. when threatened with bad publicity ! Margaret Dibben writes your money wrongs | Cash | The Observer

 

The long payback | Students | EducationGuardian.co.uk

 

A degree of uncertainty on student loan repayments - Telegraph

 

New allegations of corruption at loans company - The Independent - London - HighBeam Research

 

submission to better regulation executive :

Better Regulation Executive (BRE): Let us have your ideas:

...answer states room for SLC to use discretion ? so why don't they exercise it in cases of obvious non-deferment due to their maladministration ?

 

NUS guidance : (acrobat pdf)

http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/media/resource/Information%20Sheet%20182.pdf

 

student loan deferment conspiracy ? (here)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/students/100018-student-loan-deferment-conspiracy.html

 

blog / forum :

view from my pocket

 

dooyoo review (+ see comments):

Student Loans Co. - Review - the debts collectors

 

another blog :

kiteless's moblog

 

parliamentary publication (halfway down) : "Borrowers will retain their existing rights of deferment where their income is below 85 per cent. of average earnings"

Lords Hansard text for 5 Mar 1998 (180305w03)

 

just a sample ! Remember all of these pages would be handy in Court as part of a legitmate defence - why on earth should borrowers suffer the consequences of the Student Loans Company messing up the administration of their Student Loan ?!

[disgruntledofcornwall]

You may find the following letter I am about to send useful.

 

Keep in mind the fact that Smith Lawson ARE THE SLC!

 

 

 

 

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

Mrs. D. Hay.

 

I refer to your threatening letters dated 19th September 2007, ref. 97XXXXXX, 92XXXXXXXX, actually received 22nd September 2007.

 

The account is in dispute and therefore your demand for money is unlawful.

 

Further, I require a break down of the sums contained in your unlawful demand as it has no relation to the charges you maintain incorrectly that are due under the account.

 

I also note that £80 of "penalty charges" have been charged to my account.

 

I would remind you that your penalty charges are unenforceable at common law and therefore unlawful.

 

As your letter contains a demand for these unenforceable charges, I TOTALLY REJECT your claim as unlawful and ask you to prove your costs in this respect and provide proof of the agreement under which you claim monies owed.

 

I also draw your attention to the fact that the SLC have so far failed to defend any penalty charges presented as such when legal action through the small

claims courts has been initiated and have failed to defend in court these unlawful penalty charges when challenged to do so.

 

I note that you attempt to fraudulently represent yourself as a legal representative working at a firm separate from the SLC, indeed as a separate firm of solicitors by using the phrase "my client" and you state you were "instructed by The Student Loans Company".

 

The so called "Smith Lawson & Company" pretends to be acting as some form of solicitor for "your client" yet this is merely "a trading name of the Student Loans Company Limited". Smith Lawson and Company do not exist at all, in fact it is a trading name of the SLC.

 

It is fraudulent and therefore a criminal offence to falsely represent yourself as a separate company and claim you were instructed by a “client” when clearly you can not have received any instruction from any so called "client" as “your client” is one and the same company…

 

I note also that you further attempt to add credibility to your fraud and to hide your company identity by providing a PO box number only for the address, even unlawfully omitting the city of origin flouting of THE COMPANIES ACT 2006. I checked your PO box and it is in fact at the offices of The Student Loans Company.

 

I consider this to be an act of fraud by false representation as defined by Section 2 of THE FRAUD ACT 2006. Where a person makes "any representation as to fact or law ... express or implied" which they know to be untrue or misleading. This is a statutory criminal offence. I will be seeking further advice on this matter.

 

I would advise you that I consider your letter, in addition to being fraudulent and misleading, constitutes and an unlawful demand for money with menaces which is another statutory criminal offence under THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994.

 

You may be interested to know that on conviction you may be subject to indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or to

both. I will be seeking further advice on this matter.

 

Your letters constitute a course of conduct constituting harassment under the PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997. I would draw your personal attention to for the purposes of the act, conduct by one person shall also be taken to be conduct by another if that other has aided, abetted, counseled or procured the conduct. The knowledge and purpose of the person who aids, abets, counsels or procures conduct are what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring and not when the conduct occurs.

 

For your information, I am a disabled student and received my disability allowance from the student loan company, reference number here on 0X/0X/2007. As a student, all student loans are DEFERRED under the student loan regulations.

 

In addition, I sent deferment forms on 0X/04/2007, which you claimed to have lost. Proof of postage held.

 

I called the SLC on the 0X/X/2007 to enquire as to the continued lack of action on deferment and was told that no forms had been received.

 

On this date, I made a goodwill interim payment of £20, reference XXXX, which I was told would stop any recovery action while the new forms were processed and requested further forms be sent.

 

My helper returned these forms with proof of student status, (which you hold as you provided the loan) on the XX/0X/2007.

 

No other communication has been received until your letter today.

 

It is inconceivable that you could not know I am currently a student as the student loan company PROVIDED the loan this year for which proof of student status from the university was requested by yourselves.

 

This is clearly a case of criminal maladministration defined as such in law as

 

Delay

Incorrect action or failure to take any action

Failure to follow procedures or the law

Failure to provide information

Inadequate record-keeping

Failure to investigate

Failure to reply

Misleading or inaccurate statements

Inadequate liaison

Broken promises

 

of which I can prove the entire list above. I will be seeking further advice on this matter.

 

I would also point out that the statutory time for requesting payment is in fact 14 days not 7 as stated on your letter. I will be seeking further advice on

this matter also.

 

As I can not easily communicate with the SLC due to my disability and the SLC have ignored repeated requests to comply with my requests in this regard, then I also consider you to be in breach of THE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS DISCRIMINATION ACT 2001. I draw your attention to chapter 2, 28R, paragraphs 2, 11. I am seeking further advice on this matter.

 

I will also be seeking further advice on your personal conduct with regard to maladministration and seeking to initiate legal action as I think any court would agree that it would be unlawful for the SLC to assert that they can insist on commencing recovery action against a CURRENT student recorded as such by the same company while at the same time demanding proof which only the SLC actually possesses in the same offices it issues demands for payment from.

 

I draw your attention to THE MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988 section 1, later amended by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE ACT 2001 section 43.

 

The sending to another of any article with intent to cause distress or anxiety is a criminal offence. The offence covers letters and writing of all descriptions.

 

As the account is:

 

1. In dispute.

2. Not in default due to the fact I am a current student you hold proof of student status within your own company.

3. I have provided reasonable proof of income in the form of deferment form sent by recorded delivery

4. Contains demands for penalties unenforceable at common law;

 

Further;

 

You have fraudulently presented yourself as some sort of solicitor representing a company instructed by a fictitious "client", the "client" being the same company as the so called Smith Lawson & Company in the same offices with the sole intention of causing distress and anxiety, I consider your letter to constitute an article with the sole purpose of creating anxiety and distress under the aforementioned act. I will be seeking further advice on this matter.

 

Under section 78 of THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 you are ordered to supply me with the following:

 

1) A True copy of the executed agreement conforming to the prescribed format under the Act for the above numbered accounts.

 

2) Any deed of assignment

 

3) A statement of the current balance you claim is owed under the credit agreements above.

 

Further: I demand that these unlawful threats of recovery be suspended while you actually investigate the fact I am as I state a disabled student and that you could reasonably be expected to know this as I hold a current award, the holding of which satisfies the requirement for deferment in any case.

 

I require details of the Student Loans Company Complaints procedures including the contact details of the FSA and Financial Ombudsman. I wish to make a complaint about your personal conduct and that of the SLC.

 

I demand that any information relating to the unlawful demand for money recorded by credit reference agencies be disclosed to me under THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 and also immediately removed. This is a formal subject access request.

 

For the avoidance of doubt in this matter, if I find that any record has been made of this unlawful demand at any credit reference agency I will make good all losses so caused at common law against you.

 

I formally request a reasonable adjustment to your administration practices with reference to THE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS DISCRIMINATION ACT 2001.

 

I draw your attention to the fact that under chapter 2, 28R, paragraph, 11, the SLC is defined as an educational service provider under that act and I therefore request that in order to facilitate the deferment of the above loan accounts, that it can reasonably be expected for the SLC to check it’s own records that will confirm my student status thus negating the unreasonable requirement for me to confirm this via the deferment forms as this has put me at a disadvantage to an able student.

 

I look forward with great interest to your apology, granting of immediate deferment based on the records you hold proving I am a current student and your rapid reply.

 

In the first instance, you must comply with the law and state in writing that the recovery is suspended pending investigation into the above. This letter has been sent by fax, email and to your correspondence address with proof of postage retained.

 

Regards

 

Name

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really hope they enjoy that!

 

Will write more about my case and start another thread later.

[Thepower]

Nice letter,

rember you need to pay £10 for a SAR (requesting your data)

and £1 for the CCA request ( a true copy of your agreement)

 

if you don't they can rightfuly with hold this information.

 

I'd also add add that your going to complain to the Trading standars, the OFT and the department of trade and industry (their boss)

[Mr. H]

I'm back!

 

Since my last vist I haven't heard anything from SLC (apart from a letter from Smith Lawson about Christmas time, which I ignored as it said nothing tht they hadn't said before. However I received a scary letter today...

 

...From Cap Quest Debt Recovery. Most of the letter says pretty much what all the rest said

 

Arrears: £400.62

Balance: £2807.68

 

However the 3rd paragraph is the one that worries me:

 

"Your arrears will be increased on the 15th day of each month by £51.57 until all the arrears have been setteled. Once this happens your account will be returned to our client for further monitoring purposes".

 

WTF!?!?! does anyone know how this figure could possibly be arrived at? I guess that they're scaring me into calling them (I don't think I will).

 

Also bear in mind that SLC have agreed deferrment again, and I have my confirmation letter stateing that this is valid until Dec 2009, however Cap Quest say.

 

I feel that my next course of action is to write to them explaining the dispute and to confirm that they are in fact lawfully acting on SLC's behalf. I have repeated encouraged SLC to take me to the County Court in order to resolve this matter, but Cap Quest seem to know how to hurt me (in the pocket).

 

Any advise about wording my letter would be gratefully received remeber that I've already Subject Access Request'd previous DCA's (and eventually received a copy of an agreement) - can I request this again as it's a new company after me?

 

New readers may want to have a look at my website for the full story.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Mr. H