Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The funds were taken by eBay, rather than Paypal.  I presume Paypal collects the funds from eBay, and so eBay then sting me for the money.   But either way, before this money was taken from my account, my eBay account balance showed as -£85.  Yes, my bank account has been debited by this amount. eBay say that they are completely removed from the chargeback process, because it is carried out by the buyer's financial institution.  So, conveniently, they cannot help, other than by refunding the chargeback fee of £14. 
    • Perfect, thanks for the detailed response. Once question, do you know how long it takes for the breathing space to get applied? Say for example I have payments due in 4 days and I apply today how does that work? Also, sorry for sounding stupid but what do you mean by default once the breathing space is in place? I mean what does "Default" mean.  After the breathing space is over and I wanted more time, what would happen? I can and will afford the payments after a few months but I just need that breather to sort some stuff out, as I have said I have never missed a payment. Sorry for the many replies but after doing a quick search, correct me if i am wrong. If it then does go into default and it goes to a collection agency am I right in saying they will send many letters and they may consider a claim? and I should only response if an official MoneyClaim is made? Also, If it does go into default does this severely affect my credit score? or will this only be in the case if a CCJ is applied.
    • there isn't one yet use the default mentioned already there. that covers all 3 debts as i assume the PAPLOC is for all 3 debts? dx  
    • a chargeback via a paypal account used in an ebay sale doesn't usually result in funds being sucked from your bank account,  just that you attain a paypal negative balance. as you saying the money was taken by paypal from your bank account without you authorising this? or is it directly the buyers name that is shown? regarding the chargeback but either way you bank account HAS been debited? dx  
    • what solicitor is the PAPLOC from? then just search xxxx snotty letter dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Notice of correction message on credit file


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5793 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just checked my credit file and found this on there in the notice of correction part.

 

what is the CRA trying to imply about me. all because i made request o have linked addresses removed. and made a claim that cabot have failed to supply a CCA to prove they have the powers to collect a debt. heres the correction as i found it.

 

 

Y1 / THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED AND WE HAVE NOW CONTACTED THE SUBSCRIBER. CARE SHOULD THEREFORE BE TAKEN WHEN USING THIS ITEM OF DATA TO ASSESS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Vogelrock

 

I have the exact same notice on my Experian report for a financial association that just never existed. Basically, the CRA writes to whoever put the notice on to ask for proof they were allowed to do that and in the meantime they put that on to show there is a dispute with the info and anyone searching should not rely on this particular entry to judge you.

 

Well thats what they told me! I don't know what good, if any, it does though.

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for that. i banged the question back at them about it.

 

think i have another question for them now. how can a mortgage account have two defaults against me.

 

one for the whole amount and one for the monthly payments.

 

i only really have one debt with my mortgage company and that is the full amount.

 

i think it is time to Keep the CRA's on there toes and make sure they are doing there job and check each and every default someone wants to file against someone. that is there job right.

 

so far i have had good results to get files amended to reflect a better judgement of me as a person now compared to me 5-8yrs ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have noticed that callcredit are one of the worse offenders for removing information from a credit report.

 

i know of 2 defaults that have been removed by two different companies on my credit report at experian. but both are still on my callcredit report. even though i was informed they have be told to remove them by both companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call credit are useless, they even have my ccj listed at the wrong court! As for your mortgage that just doesn't sound right. How can you be defaulted twice for the same debt??

 

You would think the CRA would query that before putting it in, do they not have a responsibility to check entries also? Check out the link below, it is VERY interesting reading!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/129437-information-commissioners-office-six.html

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats what i have based all my questions on. it seems to be working so far. i am getting responses. but it is taking quite a few emails to get it all sorted.

 

call credit will have go to be taken to task i think.

 

they are so bad they should not be allowed to hold anyones information at all.

Edited by vogelrok
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...