Shop Direct Finance / MKRR / MKDP LLP

fermi

You clearly are letting it colour your responses disproportionally.

Anyway, as said, if in the very unlikely case it happens then it needs to be sorted.

Johnpj

And what are the consequences if it does happen?

Might it not be better for the poster to be armed with what might happen so they can decide for themselves how to play it.

Your attitude is almost dont worry and deal with it when it does.

Will you give him your credit card as a additional card holder if the worst happens and a default suddenly appears with no warning, and his existing card is suspened?

Or will you then walk away and say, well these things happen?

Nobody on here in recent times has had unexpected negative information cause major disruption in the short term, that you know of, have they?

fermi

If it's going to happen it's going to happen.

(However unlikely that is)

If it does they need to deal with it now, rather than it coming to bite them later on when they might be wanting to do something really important like apply for a mortgage.

Johnpj

Any one interested in the facts, please look at this BBC watchdog report and all the follow up, then decide if I was a LONE unlucky one:

I cannot post links, as I am too new, so please put the usual www bbc co uk followed by (replacing the - with the /)

- blogs -watchdog -2009 - 01 -the_chase_for_debts_not_always.html

Or put bbc watchdog the chase for debts not always

into google and look at the one regarding the company starting with L

Interesting they ALSO mention Littlewoods which was the original request for help in this post.

fermi

No one said you were unique. :rotfl:

But you are drawing too big a conclusion based on your own bad experience.

I think pretty much all the regular posters on here have seen that watchdog link regarding Lowells.

Johnpj

fermi wrote: »

No one said you were unique. :rotfl:

But you are drawing too big a conclusion based on your own bad experience.

I think pretty much all the regular posters on here have seen that watchdog link regarding Lowells.

Really,

YOUR comments like

Dave Sk: Don't let the atypical experience of one person colour your decisions.

go against you I am afraid.

And all the comments on the consumer action website are also atypical then?

I said it was common, you repeated it was not. Re-read the whole thread and think about your replies.

fermi

Johnpj wrote: »

Really,

YOUR comments like

Dave Sk: Don't let the atypical experience of one person colour your decisions.

go against you I am afraid.

I said it was common, you repeated it was not. Re-read the whole thread and think about your replies.

I still say it is uncommon.

Your experience is atypical. I never said it was unique.

You are also I presume one person last time you checked?

I am happy with my replies.

fermi

Anyway, the point is if they are going to record a default, they will do it.

The OP would be best off knowing so they can get it sorted PDQ rather than waiting until it pops up later and bites them on the arse.

fermi

Dave_Sk wrote: »

[STRIKE]Fermi, could you point me in the direction of the prove it letter? I can't find it now![/STRIKE]

For others reference, "prove it" letter:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=11570893&postcount=2

That would be the one.

Then go from there.

Johnpj

fermi wrote: »

Anyway, the point is if they are going to record a default, they will do it.

The OP would be best off knowing so they can get it sorted PDQ rather than waiting until it pops up later and bites them on the arse.

Actually you have lost the plot, I have NEVER said he will already have a default. PLEASE PLEASE re-read. I have said if he chooses NOT to pay, having made contact with them, then a default could be registered without warning.

So how you have managed to re-word my concern, and try and make your self out to be agreeing all along is beyond me.

For example very early on you made a very dismissive comment:

fermi wrote: »

It's not a grey area. They shouldn't do that. Default or GAIN.

Now you say its well known, do you not think you should have put a comment like "But there have been reports on BBC Watchdog and others" instead of giving the impression I was making this all up, or making a point about nothing?

Do you not think the original poster would have liked, and further should have had the choice to know all about this before he decided his course of action?

I have made the same point all along, if you read the whole thread, you have changed your tack as you dug a deeper hole.

My position has not changed, I am just worried for the guy in case he suddenly IN THE FUTURE gets a default without warning due to him contacting them and choosing NOT to pay.

This should end NOW, but I am sure you will have the last word.