SSE - £150 + VAT (to deliver letter)

philD_2

Yep, was easy to locate

philD_2

victor2 wrote: »

You're not wrong. Maybe when you visit the SSE director at home, you can point out that he is undercharging his customers...

There is no maybe Victor

Fire_Fox

Fire_Fox wrote: »

There are set amounts that can be charged in debt collecting/ by bailiffs, run an advanced search on the 'Debt Free Wannabe' board.

Have you done this yet PhilD?

philD_2

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Have you done this yet PhilD?

Hi Fire Fox

Yep, looks like breach of the 'consumer contract regulations 1999' which should be reported to OFT (IE charges DO NOT reflect their costs). I'm waiting for some legal advise from some ex Uni mates so I'll hold off with the OFT until I get a response.

If SSE had been in England or Wales then I'd have simply used MCOL to issue a summons for the same amount SSE charged - unfortunately, SSE are based in Scotland (but this may prove interesting).

SwanJon

philD wrote: »

Hey Mr SwanJon (CV 39.7 North East - British Gas)

Yes, I agree the charges were 'made up' - entirely fictisious - don't represent any actual real costs to SSE.

philD wrote: »

Yep, was easy to locate

Have some posts been deleted, or am I missing something?
What are you trying to say with the CV 39.7... bit?
'Made up' doesn't always mean fictitious, and it looks like you are the one 'making fun'.
I'm sorry if you feel I have been demeaning to you, that was never my intent. I was only ever commenting on your actions, not you as a person.

I feel that you may have a legitimate grievance with the duplication of a charge for a single event (delivery of the letter), but by adding so much more on that is not applicable it reduces the effectiveness of this complaint.
You would like them to 'break down the charge' (is that better than 'how the charge is made up'?), they decline to do so.
I asked what you thought a reasonable charge would be for the extra actions they had to take following your non-payment and you dismissed it.

philD wrote: »

If SSE had been in England or Wales then I'd have simply used MCOL to issue a summons for the same amount SSE charged - unfortunately, SSE are based in Scotland (but this may prove interesting).

I take it this means that you have paid the charges? Otherwise how could you issue a claim/summons for costs you have not incurred? (I did ask this earlier, but again you dismissed it.)

philD_2

If anyone else has issues with SSE and believe they can't use the MCOL system to issue a summons to SSE (as based in Scotland) then here's some information you may find useful:

Consumer credit license:0649018

Individuals that run the organisation:
Anthony Edward Keeling
Ian Macdonald Manson
Paul Morton Alistair Phillips-Davies
Peter Grant Lawns
Correspondence
Inveralmond House, 200, Dunkeld Road, Perth, PH1 3AQ, United Kingdom
Principal Place Of Business 55, Vastern Road, Reading, RG1 8BU, United Kingdom
Registered Office 55 Vastern Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 8BU

Key point here is that their registered office in based in England and hence we can use MCOL to issue a summons!

philD_2

OFT Guidelines:

Unfair standard terms: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_terms/oft143.pdf

■ consumers being subject to unfair
penalties.
■ consumers being denied full redress if
things go wrong.

...

philD_2

As part of the Consumer Credit license SSE must have completed a Credit Competence Plan (OFT Form CCP 1).

Section 3 (OFT Form CCP 1)

The guidance sets out the types of behaviour that the OFT considers to be unfair and which could call into question fitness to hold a licence.
Examples of the types of behaviour covered include:

• failing to investigate or provide proper details/records when a debt is queried or disputed (yep, applies here)

• claiming a right of entry when no court order has been obtained (we shall see)

• misleading debtors by the use of official-looking documents such as letters made to resemble court claims (yep, Warrant action).

And the list goes on!

chanz4

Its service, and doesnt come under the same act

philD_2

chanz4 wrote: »

Its service, and doesnt come under the same act

So chanz4,

Which laws apply then?