Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • More from the Second Sight guys in the Law Gazette. Post Office Inquiry: Second Sight accountant accuses lawyer of conspiring to pervert course of justice | Law Gazette WWW.LAWGAZETTE.CO.UK Second Sight accountant found compelling evidence in two cases that evidence was withheld, public inquiry is told.  
    • Why have there not been arrests yet? Waiting for the end of an inquiry which seems designed to drag on forever is a feeble excuse "the Post Office “was constantly sabotaging our efforts” to seek the truth and used claims of legal professional privilege – a type of confidentiality which covers legal documents – “to justify withholding documents from us”. "Aujard had said the state-owned body “would not hesitate to take legal action against me” under a “draconian” non-disclosure agreement (NDA)" "Henderson became concerned after reviewing the case file of Jo Hamilton, .. Henderson said the Post Office’s decision to charge Hamilton did not seem to be supported by its own internal security report, and there was evidence that “potentially exculpatory material” had not been disclosed to her at trial or subsequently. “I regarded this as either professional misconduct or, potentially, criminal conduct,” he said."   Horizon IT scandal investigator tells inquiry Post Office was ‘sabotaging our efforts’ | Post Office Horizon scandal | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Ian Henderson, looking into possible miscarriages of justice, said he came to believe he was dealing with ‘a cover-up’  
    • and the elephant in the room     Brexit: New report suggests UK £311bn worse off by 2035 due to leaving EU NEWS.SKY.COM The report came up with a scenario for growth if the UK had stayed inside the EU, and compared it to forecasts the Office for Budget Responsibility made...    
  • 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

LAD Vs Coop


lifeafterdebt
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5216 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

Hi All,

 

Thought I would start this thread as I have had a number of different issue regarding the Coop covered elsewhere. So here goes.

 

Was in a payment plan with Coop who then got nasty demanding full payment etc early in the year. They then sent a default notice giving 14 days in total (no time for service). Arriving on the same day and dated the same was a termination notice! The notice was for the arrears only. Later they tried sending another termination notice, pity for them you can't terminate twice! They also tried adding a £60 fee after the alleged agreement was terminated.

 

I then made a CCA request. They sent an application form. The alleged T&C's that applied were barely legible.

 

So, with the help of BRW, I sent off a letter to them explaining the error of their ways and offering to settle the arrears for a speedy solution and cleaning my credit file. They did not reply and I have not heard from them for months.

However, a couple of months ago I find a default has been put on my credit file. Later I got a threatogram from Robinson Way asking for full payment. They even said I could pay by credit card. Nice of them but very naughty. Anyway, sent a letter referring them to the letter sent that I have not had a reply to. That was over a month ago and have heard nothing.

 

I then got an alert from Experian. I checked the alert and found that my account has been marked as settled. I assume that they have not given up but have sold on to DCA perhaps?

 

I have now sent off a letter back to Coop asking them to reply to my original letter and demanding removal of the default, pointing out the defective DN and relevant legislation why they should not have placed a default on my file. Doubt this will make any difference though.

 

Below are all the docs I have so far except for the RW demand. Can add this if needed.

 

CCa PG01: http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/t...1_edited-1.png

CCA PG02: http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/t...2_edited-1.png

CCA PG03: http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/t...oopCCAPG03.png

CN 01: http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/lifeaftedebt/COOP_Cancellation01a.png

CN02: http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/lifeaftedebt/COOP_Cancellation02a.png

DN: http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt312/lifeaftedebt/COOP_DefaultNotice_a.png

 

All comments welcome.

 

Cheers:)

Edited by lifeafterdebt
Link to post
Share on other sites

I then got an alert from Experian. I checked the alert and found that my account has been marked as settled. I assume that they have not given up but have sold on to DCA perhaps?

Hello there lifeafterdebt. Have you really just struck extremely lucky?

 

How long ago did you receive the alert/check your file? What is the date your credit report is saying the account was settled on? (I understand you might not want to give the exact date, but are we talking a week ago, a month?) If it was recently I would suggest there may be a letter slowly crawling its way to you (you know how long some of their post seems to take).

 

As far as I am aware if a debt has been sold on the original shouldn't be marked as settled, but rather it should be removed from your report, to be replaced by an account reported on by whoever the debt was sold on to.

 

Just to be clear, this was a Co-op credit card? How long had you been in the payment plan? What was the Co-op reporting on your credit file, was it permanently 6 months late markers? Roughly how much was still outstanding on the account (again a ball-park figure will do)?

 

I feel Lexis and myself will be watching your thread with great interest!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi IainHL,

 

Sorry for not replying earlier. Unfortunately have had some family health probs to deal with so have not had the chance to answer.

 

Well, surprise, surprise it appears that the CRA entry was a mistake! I did think that this would be the case but had hoped otherwise!

 

Still getting the lovely letters from the DCA and had a similar reply to my query that Lexis got from the Coop regarding the cancellation/termination notice.

 

Anyway, will keep this thread updated from now on.

 

Cheers:)

Edited by lifeafterdebt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Received a letter from RW re my offer to settle the arrears. They are asking for I&E details before they consider the offer. What's that all about? After all, I'm not going to be paying the arrears up.

 

Any comments as to what they are up to, if anything (I'm always suspicious!), would be appreciated.

 

Cheers:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would send a letter to RW's Complaints Department and tell them that there is no agreement for the alleged account just an illegible application form and as the agreement was unlawfully rescinded at the point of sale, as far as you are concerned the matter is closed and any further correspondence from them will be forwarded directly to the OFT for their attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for dropping by Pinky - much appreciated.

 

Have been reading through your thread on getting your credit file default entries removed. I have a similar problem in that after unlawfully terminating the alleged agreement they then wait more than 6 months to put a default on my file. I have told them to remove it and explained that they lost the right to report once an alleged agreement is no longer live but they just don't listen!

Edited by lifeafterdebt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Next step the ICO. Mine are there now.

 

Giving them one last chance to remove the entries. Don't think they will comply but it will show that I have given them ample opportunity to do so.

 

Thanks for the help Pinky, it is appreciated.

 

Cheers:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have transferred your question to your own thread to prevent possibly highjacking pinky69's thread.

 

Hi lookinforinfo,

 

Don't want to argue about this but are you are saying that a creditor has a right to report on a credit fileautolinker.com autolinking image even where no legal agreement exists? Surely, just because they do it, it doesn't make it right! After all, there is a lot of things they do that are wrong but they still do them because they think they can get away with it.

 

I have just had a quick read through this thread and came across this post from Pinky69 who started this thread. It reads.

'A DN is not necessary to make an entry on a credit report -a default indicates that the relationship between the creditor and debtor has broken down. You should read the Information Commissioners Office's Technical Guidance on filing defaults - you will get it on their website. What creditors cannot do is issue a DN which is unlawful for some reason then terminate the account then make a default entry because that action rescinds the agreement and any clauses in the agreement giving permission for the creditor to process your personal data are rescinded with the agreement. A creditor can issue a second DN as long as they haven't terminated the account. If you apply to set aside CCJs on the basis of an unlawful DN and termination then you are going to have to explain to the judge why you didn't raise it at the time of the case. If it has been a while since the the CCJs were handed, it may be very difficult to get them overturned.'

 

Hope this helps with what I am trying to say.

 

I would agree with you that once an account has been terminated by the creditor [especially when unlawfully rescinded] that the OC should cease

reporting to the CRAs. They obviously do not have the borrowers permission any longer.

However, the waters are muddied by the fact that creditors have a "legitimate interest" under the Data Protection Act which appears to give them the possibility of continuing to process ones data after an account has been ended-and that is according to the Guidelines of the ICO if you read what they say about legitimate interest.

 

So in situations where an account has been terminated but then the debt is cleared afterwards for example, it would be more than reasonable for the creditor to inform the CRA without asking the borrower for permission. If you accept that, and I think the ICO and the FOS would, then it would be surprising that the creditor would be unable to post any further data on the account without your permission, even if you did not agree with it. You either follow the logic of that or you don't. If the first part is right [because the data is good in that it is good information from the borrowers point of view, and accurate too, then why would the ICO object if the data was not good for the borrower but it was accurate? They would surely think that processing data was a two way street.

 

However I would say that there can be few cases where there would be any further detrimental data to be posted after an account is closed. So it should be unacceptable for a default to be registered after an account has been terminated. And in your case so long after the account was terminated -and unlawfully rescinded into the bargain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the agreement has been rescinded, all clauses pertaining to the processing of data are rescinded. After rescission the OC has no legitimate interest in processing data or anything else to do with the agreement. If they do, they lay themselves open to a claim for damages (Khophror and Durkin).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for dropping by lookinforinfo - all input is much appreciated.

 

I think in my case I will need to forward a complaint to the ICO and maybe the OFT as pinky suggested and see what they have to say.

 

Will keep the thread updated with developments.

 

Cheers:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...