Jump to content

bergebabe

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. OK THANK YOU!! Anyone any idea who the underwriters were for egg in 2001? I have found it could be AXA but not sure of timeline is correct.
  2. I did a SAR request to egg before they changed hands, quite a few years ago. This was my first attempt to claim the money back. They sent me a copy of my agreement (online screenshot) showing it ticked and my electronic signature. This neither proves nor disproves my situation. They rejected my claim and I didn't continue to chase it - I should have but I didn't. This was about 2009. I have lost all of this paperwork in a recent house move. I didn't see the point in another SAR request as the last time the information was of little use. And talking to FOS they have been unable to supply very little original paperwork as evidence (Canada Square) due to the age of the case. They have relied on examples of what I would have seen. Which is clearly fabricated.
  3. Oh right! Why would they not have mentioned it was because they were unregulated in this case - I thought FOS was supposed to be impartial? It is all very annoying. The FOS have said if I can provide proof that it was pre ticked they can overturn their initial decision - but if what you say is true then thats not the case I imagine.
  4. Hi there, I was really hoping for some help and advise on whether there is any way forward with this complaint. I complained to Canada Square about an egg credit card taken out in March 2001. I know that I did not opt in to take PPI - that the box was pre ticked, as I was also advised on the phone that the box had to be pre ticked to complete the application when I questioned it. They rejected my complaint as my personal circumstances meant I had no cover (significant sick pay or savings etc). I don't see how this is relevant. I took it to FOS and they rejected my complaint. I have questioned it and they say their records show it was opt in at this time. But I know this isn't true. Can anyone give any advice on how to proceed with this?
  5. Hello there, I am re opening this thread - as you can see I started it in 2009! I managed to clai back PPI from a nuber of other banks, but had no luck with creations and land of leather and gave up. However, I am trying to give it another go using resolver. I am yet to mention the overpaid interest though. Have there been any fresh cases/ stories concerning land of leather and creation? I would love to hear how anyone got on in a similar situation!
  6. ok - well that i can cope with!! thanks for the insight. interesting that im not getting it for the other account with them...
  7. it is also worth noting that the three figures down the left are all the same - the full amount owed including the minimum payment required.
  8. Hi all - long time no post!! about a year ago, with lots of help from you guys, i wrote to cabot requesting a CCA for two separate debts. they were unable to produce these and put both debt "on hold" the larger of the two for goldfish, although they were unable to chase me for payments and the account was "on hold" they were (and still are) processing late payment info to my credit file. Now they have decided to start chasing for the money again! they still havent sent through a copy of the CCA, or even attempted to pass anything off as one. They are just choosing to ignore the fact that they put the account on hol dand start chasing me again!! i got a letter at the beginning of sept and an identical one today - should i be ignoring this or replying? i dont want hassle letters noce a month!! here it is...
  9. as you will see from post above - i have said he got the other ticket when he originally parked there. he was coming and going all morning to pick up and unload as it was first day on job, but after receiving the "on the van" ticket" he did it from a more inconvenient spot. you obviously dont read THAT closely. thanks for your help anyway.
  10. wow - im so angry on your behalf. sorry i cant be any help i just wanted to offer my support. i know you've prob got enough on your plate with a new babay but u should deffo get in touch with the press - its disgusting.
  11. PS - this time the contravention code is 62J not 622 but the blurb says the same offence.
  12. agghh, this situation is just getting worse!! I have sent the above letter off and as yet have received no response. my OH then received a SECOND PCN in the post! It is for the same day, about 2 hours before when he was first unloading and must have been from one of those drive by shooters. obviously if the first one had been left on the car he could have done something to stop him getting the second one! as it is he has two tickets for the same day and same "contravention" can they do this? i am going to send off the above letter AGAIN with a bit of amendment so any advice appreciated.
  13. i hhave drafted a letter - do you think this stands any chance at all? Dear Sir or Madam, I wish to make representation against PCN ref: Vehicle Registration Number: The PCN states contravention: 622 – Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (partly on footway). I appreciate that it is a contravention to park on the footway in Richmond and support the Councils policy to enforce the law. However at the time of the alleged contravention I was unloading heavy and bulky construction materials to the house directly opposite. The Greater London Powers Act 1974 which gave Richmond the power to enforce footway parking clearly states that 'a vehicle that was parked for the purpose of loading or unloading goods, and the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked' is exempt from the restriction. The van was parked for a period of a few minutes to allow unloading of heavy glass and other construction materials. Parking on the footpath was necessary as cars parked on the opposite side of the road had ignored signs allowing them to park on the path. This meant parking with all 4 wheels on the carriageway would have blocked the road and would not allow traffic to pass. This unloading of heavy materials could not have been undertaken from anywhere else. The vehicle was not left unattended but was out of view for no more than one minute as the materials were carried to the rear of the property while undertaking work on their swimming pool. I look forward to hearing your response to this matter.
  14. I was wondering if anyone could help me appeal this parkling ticket which my fiancee received last week. it was his first day back at work after a couple of months because of damned credit crunch so we could do without it to be honest!! i will post the ticket below but he has received it for parking two wheels on the curb. a couple of points - 1. the opposite side of the road are supposed to park on the curb (it is marked as such) and havent - which means that by parking on the road he would have been blocking it off. 2. he could not park elsewhere as he was unloading heavy glass etc from a van for work on the house he was parked opposite. he was only there a few moments. i inititally thought that appealing this would be easy due to the unloading but reading through various forums i am seeing they dont tend to back down unless you can find a fault on the ticket itself - is this the case?
×
×
  • Create New...