Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
  • 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

Faraday Tracing Bureau - Con or Not


T34A
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2417 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

I have received a letter from FTB-Ltd asking for me to confirm my name/address. They claim to be validating details for a pension scheme. Two issues here 1) one initial is wrong 2) I have worked for same govt dept all my life so they clearly don't need to validate my pension scheme

 

A thread from Jul 2007 says they might be OK but on the Internet they are virtually sub-surface, 2 entries in a business directory and a stand at the Nov 06 Pension Fair.

 

Is this technique a pre-lude to a debt collection order, a CSA claim (unlikely in my case as married now for 18 years) or some other con.

 

Inclination is to ignore letter totally but I have had a number of life policies over the years (not that I thought I had lost sight of any of them) and it would be a shame to lose opportunity for a payment - but of course that is what these cons rely on.

 

Any advice or information of FTB-Ltd?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very unlikely I have an outstanding debt which I don't know about (and as far as I know I don't have any debt other than mortgage). I haven't used HP for over 5 years, only use one credit card (and I know the status of that :( (although do have others but monthly statements show zero balance).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record I rang them today. They were looking for a Mr X Y Z born in 1971. Once I confirmed that I was not born in 1971 (without giving them the fact that I am Mr X V Z) they asked to confirm which address I was at so they could delete it from their records.

 

So assuming I get no junk mail (by confirming a valid address and name - which of course they could get from Land Registry - they are probably genuine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had similar experience with someone trying to trace my OH. We were naturally paranoid but found out they wanted to pay him an outstanding amount from an insurance plan when he was a rich person:p (before I met him unfortunately):D

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had similar experience with someone trying to trace my OH. We were naturally paranoid but found out they wanted to pay him an outstanding amount from an insurance plan when he was a rich person:p (before I met him unfortunately):D

 

Lol always the way innit?:Cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

I also received a letter from the FTB.

 

Firstly I am concerned how they got my details and who gave them to them.

 

Perhaps the Data Protection principal has been broken???

 

The letter does not explain who they are and who has instucted them to contact me and what information they require.

 

Strange...mmmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have written to this company on two occassions and they have failed to respond.

 

I asked them where they obtained my information and why did the pensions company not write to me before dislosing my personal information.

 

I would like to hear from others who has experienced this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Faraday Tracing Burea Tracing People who have a Pension with the National Bus Company.

I have finally had a reply. I have been doing some digging and this is what I have found.

 

In March 2008 there was a case in the chancery division, please double click on the blue writing below to read the case:-

 

NBPF Pension Trustees Ltd. v Warnock-Smith & Anor [2008] EWHC 455 (Ch) (14 March 2008)

 

Basically if you had a pension with the National Bus Company you maybe entittled to a sum of money.

 

Alot of people lost out on their pensions as far as I am aware there is over a million pounds to be claimed.

 

Solicitors called Taylor Wessing contacted Faraday Tracing Burea to trace missing people who have not claimed their pension pot. You could also claim if you were next of kin. Please click on the link below

 

Taylor Wessing: David Greig

 

The company dealing with the claims in Standard Life Mr Collins telephone number 0131 245 6431.

 

I am requested copies of all documents in relation to the pension.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I found this thread after searching for "Faraday Tracing Bureau". I found other references on the web to the company contacting people about lost bus company pension funds. By coincidence I've been trying to track down pension contributions I made to merchant navy companies years ago - the companies are long gone.

 

I called their 0800 number and found that they were indeed trying to find me for a pension fund I last paid into in the mid 1980's. The Merchant Navy Officers' Pension Fund had been trying to track me down (I've had a dozen addresses since then) and had managed to get an address from 1996 (when I'd re-registered my MN deck officer qualification with the Dept of Trade.

 

I doubt if there is much in the fund for me from the contributions I made from 1975 to 1983 but who knows? I will, if the near future when MNOPF write to me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi to everybody that is or has had runnings with FTB.

My story is this, they rang me and asked what they ask everyone, they need to update my details. Now I have spoken to someone there already and if there is anyone on this thread that has payed into a pension scheme connected to

 

Heywood Scheme Lifetime.

 

could anyone help me in finding out weather it is part of the Heywood Williams group or not.

hope to from you and i can sort this out

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I had a letter from them today correct name on the letter wrong on the details in it, I had a quick look on google and found their website and this on a gov dept website still not convinced follow the links below

Ding

www.ftb-ltd.com/

New death records scheme to tackle identity fraud | Home Office

 

New death records scheme to tackle identity fraud

 

23 December 2008

A new scheme will bring an end to a cruel type of identity fraud that can devastate grieving families and cost businesses millions of pounds a year.

Finance firms have hailed the scheme which releases the names of every person who has died in the UK each week as a pivotal step in the fight against fraudsters impersonating the dead.

This type of fraud takes many forms - from criminals stealing the identities of dead people from obituaries for forged credit applications, to dishonest family members claiming pensions long after their relative has died.

A common form of identity theft

 

Identity fraud protection service CIFAS believes this is one of Britain's most common forms of identity theft. The government estimates the cost of identity fraud to the UK economy is at least £1.2billion.

Since September the UK's three Registrars General have released around 140,000 death records to carefully vetted organisations to match against their clients' databases. Already 10s of thousands of matches have been made against business records helping to prevent potential frauds.

One subscriber to the scheme administered by the General Register Office (GRO) estimates that at least one in 400 pensions are being claimed fraudulently by families despite their relatives having been dead for many years.

Mortality checks have even found a case where a woman was found claiming her aunt's pension to pay a mortgage on a house 10 years after the old woman had died at the age of 98.

In another case, a pension company was informed their client had died six weeks before the family informed them, allowing them to stop payment immediately.

Statement from the Home Office Minister

 

Meg Hillier said, 'The use of death records in this way will have a dramatic impact on fraudsters abusing people's deaths - a crime which causes financial and personal distress to both businesses and individuals alike.

'We're sending a strong message to criminals: if you try and steal the identity of someone who has died to commit fraud you will be found out.'

Four firms have already been accredited to receive death register information with around a dozen more going through the stringent licensing process. Businesses can then submit records such as pension claims, insurance claims and credit applications to the licensees to find out if an individual is deceased.

Statement from the Faraday Tracing Bureau

 

Faraday Tracing Bureau (FTB), a pioneer of mortality screening, has been carrying out checks for nearly 10 years and is one of the original four firms to be accredited by the GRO. It conducts mortality checks for over 200 well-known pension funds.

FTB sales director Chris Rattenbury, said, 'Firms undertaking mortality screening were finding on average that one in four hundred pensions were being claimed fraudulently sometimes for as long as 10 years.'

'This new process will stop this kind of fraud completely. Pension schemes will be saving huge sums of money not only in fraudulent claims but also in administration costs.'

 

A deterrent to would-be fraudsters

 

Tracesmart Ltd, another of the original firms to be accredited, supplies mortality screening to major financial institutions and pension schemes.

 

Michael Trezise, managing director of Tracesmart, said, 'This is proving to be a pivotal weapon in the battle against fraud. We've identified a considerable volume of deaths within our client's customer databases, which allows them to prevent the deceased's identity from being used for fraud- protecting both company and customer alike.

 

'As more and more companies begin to use this data, we are confident that the level of this fraud will significantly drop. Simply the knowledge that death record information is being used to tackle fraud is a considerable deterrent to would-be fraudsters.'

Statement from the UK's Fraud Prevention Service

 

Peter Hurst, chief executive of CIFAS - the UK's Fraud Prevention Service said, 'The number of individuals affected continues to be far too high. Identity fraud is serious, and no-one should be complacent about it which is why this initiative is so important in helping to stamp it out.

 

'Quite apart from financial losses, the effect on victims can be very distressing. In the case of impersonation of the dead, the effect on bereaved relatives can be devastating. And where any victim's identity has been seriously compromised, it can be an extremely time-consuming and frustrating process to untangle the threads of deception.'

Statement from the National Association of Pension Funds

 

Keith Hollender, commercial director of the National Association of Pension Funds, which speaks for 1,200 pension schemes with assets of around £800 billion said, 'The decision by the GRO to release names held on the death register is welcomed by pension schemes. For many years, scheme managers have struggled to find an effective way to make sure they receive prompt notification of a member's death.

 

'Genuine mistakes, for example when relatives forget to tell the scheme that a member has died, and deliberate fraud can cost pension schemes and insurers millions of pounds both in terms of monthly cash outlays and incorrect valuations of liabilities.

 

'This decision will help minimise costs and has made the administration of pension funds much easier.'

Notes to editors

 

Death registration information has been released under the Disclosure of Death Registration Information (DDRI) scheme since the end of September.

The Police and Justice Act 2006 conferred powers on the General Register Office (GRO) for England & Wales and its counterpart in Northern Ireland, whilst GRO in Scotland take their powers from the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006. The three Registrars General supply bulk information contained in any register of deaths to organisations for use in the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences.

GRO became a part of the Identity and Passport Service (new window) (IPS), an agency of the Home Office in April 2008.

Four organisations have been accredited to receive the information from the GRO: Tracesmart Ltd, Synectics Solutions Ltd, Experian Ltd and Faraday Tracing Bureau Ltd. Each firm has a binding licence agreement and will be subject to a compliance regime to ensure the information is used appropriately. A number of firms are undergoing the accreditation process.

Approximately 12,000 records a week are made available to the four organisations. For more information about the death registration scheme log on to the General Register Office (new window) website.

For more information call the Home Office press office on 020 7035 3819 or the newsdesk on 020 7035 3535.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I found them to be a genuine company and were tracing me for a

38 year old pesion with MANWEB. They had my previous address and employer , and asked me to confirm my DOB to prove I was the right person

I spoke to a nice guy called Martin who was very helpfull seeing I started the phone call thinking it was a con.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Like other contributors,

I received letters from FTB asking me to contact them to confirm information held about me by "an occupational pension scheme".

 

 

I was suspicious because the scheme was not named in the letters, and considered binning them.

 

 

However, I found this site and read the posts that have been submitted, and decided to telephone FTB.

 

 

It turned out that they had been instructed by an operational pension scheme to establish contact with me on their behalf.

 

 

This scheme was managing the pension rights of employees of an organization which I worked for briefly and is now defunct.

 

I had forgotten that I was entitled to a pension.

 

 

I only worked for about six months in a low-status job,

 

 

but even if I receive just enough pension to buy fish and chips once a fortnight,

 

 

it's better than a kick in the teeth.

 

FTB gives little away in its approaches,

to discourage the devious from making false claims.

 

 

When I telephoned them, snippets of information were exchanged bit-by-bit to establish trust.

I am glad that they found me!

Edited by Falling Star
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

another genuine experience

 

step by step they got me to prove I was the person they wanted to talk to.

They are being careful, as they don't want to give away the pension to the wrong person

 

nice experience, if you get a letter from them, do call them

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I received a letter with my maiden name (married 8 years).

All details correct, including middle name initial, other than the use of 'Mrs' (I would have been a Miss!).

 

 

Reference to a Pension Scheme Arrangement.

I read everything on here and just gave them a call.

 

 

They were trying to trace someone with this name and the same birth year as me.

They asked me to confirm my date of birth but I said I didn't want to give any further personal details over the phone until I knew more.

 

 

He was obviously used to this reaction so explained it would be in connection to a pension I'd paid into.

he asked a couple of other non evasive questions

- whether I'd lived at a certain address (which I hadn't lived at)

and whether I'd worked for an insurance company (which I hadn't).

 

 

At that point he said that I wasn't the person they were trying to trace,

thanked me for calling and apologised for wasting my time.

 

 

My hunch is they are genuine.

But it's right to be cautious about giving over personal details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've just called them as I received a letter regarding a company trying to trace me about an occupational pension scheme.

 

 

I called them and they checked DP by asking me whether I had lived at a certain previous address, and confirming my DOB with me.

 

 

They also asked whether I had a OPS with AXA/Winterthur.

 

 

They had received communication from AXA as the address they had on file for me was my previous address.

 

 

I confirmed my new address and FTB said they would pass the information onto AXA so that they can update their records.

 

 

They confirmed I needed to take no action and that AXA would be writing to me.

 

 

I'm glad I called - I wouldn't want to lose out on the benefits of the many years of pension contributions with AXA!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For information,we now have the presence of Jill who is the Official Company Rep for Faraday Tracing Bureau.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I know this thread is quite old but I have had a similar letter. I can re-assure anyone who has had a letter that these people seem quite genuine. They did confirm many details about me and I am now waiting for contact from a company (who have been taken over recently), who I worked for almost 30 years ago regarding a pension.

I will update this when they have made contact with me to further confirm my feelings that faraday are indeed genuine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter from FTB this week... after reading some of the posts I was in two minds whether to call them or not. I'm glad I decided to make the call as once I confirmed who I was they advised that they were tracing me on behalf of a pension fund that was tracking down lost members. It just so happened that the fund was for a company I worked for in the 90's and I didn't even know I was a member of their pension. They also advised that now they have confirmed who I am and where I live they will inform the pension fund so the fund can contact me with my pension details etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi - I have also received a letter and just called them - the letter does relate to a pension scheme with an ex employer - they didn't try to get any information from me that wasn't appropriate - I'd say they are definitly genuine. Hope this post helps other people, and thanks to all the previous poster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Faraday Tracing Bureau is a company who's director is Ian DeSouza and company secretary is Donna DeSouza.

 

 

Ian also directed a company called Argosy Debt Recoveries until 2006.

 

 

The company traces people who owe or owed money.

 

 

Before the pension idea

there was a parcel company,

which had so called insured parcels that needed to be signed for,

so a current address was needed for delivery.

 

 

They get address from forms that you would have signed including guarantors addresses.

Hope this information helps.

Edited by London/Germany
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I received a letter from them 7 April 2014.

looked on the internet and was a little worried if it was phishing.

Found this site and saw some people said good things, so I cautiously phoned them Today.

 

I was was very careful and asked them to give me some way of telling they were genuine!

 

The young lady first asked for the reference from the letter and then addressed me by my middle name which was not on the letter they sent.

 

 

She then told me that I had worked for a company in 1988 and their pension fund had been taken over by another company which wished to contact me.

 

The information I gave her did not agree,

but I mentioned there was another parent company who owned them when I started there,

she then confirmed the name of the parent company.

 

At the moment I am 99.9% certain that Faraday is genuine.

 

As some one else had mentioned,

it appears they get a finders fee from the pension company..

...NO Mention of any costs were made.

 

The girl said that all correspondence will come directly from the new pension company very shortly Will keep you posted!

Edited by EddieK
don't wish to cause problem on first post (or later)
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...