Lowell question

[winner12]

Re: Lowell question

Cor blimey got my eyeballs on stalks reading up on this one
Has I see it (thanks Teaboy ) I should have signed a new agreement with SD which is why I have a blank agreement from Lowells and original T&Cs from SD
The cca is for a 3month interest free account with littlewoods taken out in 2002 I reckon I had this account before then.
So my question now is this account still in dispute with SD
and do I write to Lowells pointing out the fact that the agreement is not for a SD account but littlewoods and start a dispute with Lowells

[teaboy2]

Re: Lowell question

Cor blimey got my eyeballs on stalks reading up on this one
Has I see it (thanks Teaboy ) I should have signed a new agreement with SD which is why I have a blank agreement from Lowells and original T&Cs from SD
The cca is for a 3month interest free account with littlewoods taken out in 2002 I reckon I had this account before then.
So my question now is this account still in dispute with SD
and do I write to Lowells pointing out the fact that the agreement is not for a SD account but littlewoods and start a dispute with Lowells

The account with littlewoods would have expired if 6 years of more have past since you last used it prior to purchases from Shop Direct. If thats the case then they should have created a new agreement under their legal entity shop direct when you purchased from Shop Direct Home Shopping Limited (formerly littlewoods limited) - Am also certain that if no money was owned by you to littlewoods when it changed to shop direct then the old littlewoods agreement is was paid off in full and a new agreement should have been created under their shop direct name when you made your purchase through shop direct.

So yes i would chance my arm and say they HAVE NO VALID agreement on the above technicality.

Though we would need to look at the legal issue to be certain, and that will mean some reading.

[Gorang]

Re: Lowell question

The account with littlewoods would have expired if 6 years of more have past since you last used it prior to purchases from Shop Direct. If thats the case then they should have created a new agreement under their legal entity shop direct when you purchased from Shop Direct Home Shopping Limited (formerly littlewoods limited) - Am also certain that if no money was owned by you to littlewoods when it changed to shop direct then the old littlewoods agreement is was paid off in full and a new agreement should have been created under their shop direct name when you made your purchase through shop direct.

So yes i would chance my arm and say they HAVE NO VALID agreement on the above technicality.

Though we would need to look at the legal issue to be certain, and that will mean some reading.

Thinking out of the box here for a min

How about throwing the above, at them, and making them do the reading for us for a change, as if you write to them and add sumit like
it is my understanding you should of done this that and the next thing so if you say different then provide me with copies of the legislation that says you don't need to do X, Y and Z

get the idea? ?

That way they do most of the leg work and when they reply
1) we can prob counter it
2) you have proof for a court that what they say is rubbish
3) could prove that they admit they got NAFF all

Think this idea has more avantages than disadvantages

What you think? ?

[teaboy2]

Re: Lowell question

Good point, sure beats having to read up about it ourselves lol

[Gorang]

Re: Lowell question

sure beats having to read up about it ourselves lol

Exactly what I was thinking lol

Try to force them into doing the legwork but I suspect they won't and will just come back with a load of bull, which would be even better for winner, if, it lands in court at all

[winner12]

Re: Lowell question

Hi been scratching around and the account with Littlewoods was paid off in June 2006 and I think Additions took over 2007 and Shop direct 2009 so am I stuffed or do I stand a fighting chance as its not quite 6 years

[teaboy2]

Re: Lowell question

Have you got evidence of the account being paid off such as bank statements etc? Its not the first time i have heard of littlewoods accounts being paid off just for the owner of the account to then get a bill from them, i think its an issue with their systems and employees not adding payments to it, to show it has been paid.

[winner12]

Re: Lowell question

Hi Teaboy
Yes i have proof the account was settled but i then ordered more goods once it became additions but did not sign any new agreements

[teaboy2]

Re: Lowell question

Right so you need to know what goods they are chasing money for and whether they were also paid off in full or not.

[winner12]

Re: Lowell question

Thanks Teaboy again
I know what they are chasing for (I was trying to sort pro rata payment when I cca shop direct) its all shop direct goods so thats why if I go down the route Im thinking of a new agreement should have been in place and the old one for littlewoods is null and void because it was paid in full before when my details went to Shop direct

[teaboy2]

Re: Lowell question

Thanks Teaboy again
I know what they are chasing for (I was trying to sort pro rata payment when I cca shop direct) its all shop direct goods so thats why if I go down the route Im thinking of a new agreement should have been in place and the old one for littlewoods is null and void because it was paid in full before when my details went to Shop direct

I agree as you had paid up prior to littlewoods changing names etc. You never signed an agreement with the legal entity shop direct. So i would get them to read up on the legislation about it like suggested above in earlier posts.

[tortoise]

Re: Lowell question

Gosh, these fellows are such a frightful bore. They really have no leg to stand on. Get your polo hammer and give them a jolly good whack over the head with it.

Who could possibly contemplate earning a living doing such work? Thoroughly detestable in my book, especially when they have such little grasp of the very law which they purport to be upholding.

Tar and feather them I say!

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: Lowell question

They might sell the tar and the feathers !

[CleverClogs]

Re: Lowell question

Gosh, these fellows are such a frightful bore. They really have no leg to stand on. Get your polo hammer and give them a jolly good whack over the head with it.

Are you sure that would be quite wise, old chap?

It could make a ruddy mess of one's mallet.

Who could possibly contemplate earning a living doing such work?

Come now - what job opportunities are there for the low skilled low-life?

Thoroughly detestable in my book, especially when they have such little grasp of the very law which they purport to be upholding.

Tar and feather them I say!

That seems a waste of good tar.

[Jabba]

Re: Lowell question

They really have no leg to stand on.

since when has that been any impediment?