Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just to clarify - I make use of evening legal clinics. It is not always possible to see a lawyer (they have limited time and days/week).  This means questions one has may never get answered or there's weeks between follow-ups.   To be really clear - I am representing myself; I am playing at being lawyer/ barrister - which means I take help wherever I can get it (and then research it thoroughly). Ae - a judge in a recent hearing pointed out the receiver is not part of my current proceedings - and suggested I have a separate claim v the receiver. Disclosure has presented damning evidence v the receiver  The receiver against whom I have a complaint is not part of the receiver governing body.   The receivership is in 2 names - a joint one.  My complaint is directed at whom I was told is the lead receiver.  The other named receiver IS a member of the governing body.  But he has now left the company.  And the lead receiver has retired - but is still a working consultant on my case.   All the evidence shows it was the 'lead' receiver who was doing all the  work/ the misbehaviour.   But if the appointment was 'joint' would I make a complaint against them both?    I am sure that wouldn't go down well with the other receiver who is at the beginning of his career. The law is very much against borrowers.   But the evidence against this receivership is crystal clear.   I just don't know how and to whom to complain.   The places I've tried so far don't offer much transparency       
    • Ok, noted, thanks again. I'll share details of every communication received just to make sure.
    • Yes. I sent back the PAP form stating they hadnt supplied the correct paperwork and that pdf is what they sent back
    • have you responded to the letter of claim?
    • It's probably a good idea to come back here when the next letter from them turns up.  It remains to be seen if they will act on your employer's communication or will just continue with the cycle of their daft "threatening" letters.
  • 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

'C.R.A.'s Archiving Our Data Over 6 Years Old'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4170 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

This looks like some thing needs to be done,

I have a report from Callcredit which shows that there are 2 defaults which are over 6 years BUT and here's the BUT Lovell has put a default on from 2009 and 2008 so they say that these have to remain on file for another 6 years!

Well I have ALL the paperwork for these and can prove that this is wrong under law and looking at making this go to court.

 

What I am asking who do I do?

 

Let this be the first win case here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Call Credit are wrong one entry one default date, a company such as Lowell must update the credit files with their details when the y aquire a debt BUT the default date must remain the same.

 

If Lowell have taken over these debts and change the default date to that of the time they aquired the debt (which is totally wrong) you must make a formal complaint to the Data Controller at Lowell, and also to the data controller at call credit and get a notice of dispute placed on the entries.

 

You most certainly need to check Equifac and Experian as well as Call Credit and their free offshoot are not always accurate or up to date.

 

The whole marret must be reported to the Information Commissioners Office asap.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Complaint to lowel.

2.copy to call credit+ place notice of dispute on files.

3. Complaint to the ico.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

BRIGADIER2JCS

You and I know that but they feel they are a law unto them selves and there is nothing we can do and the Information comm office are doing nothing about them.

Maybe its time to take them on and the HP act as well.

I am up for it now as I feel this is so wrong and every day they are people getting shafted.

Now's the time for letters before action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree more or less, but I do see some action from the ICO, and I also receive good advice from them when I phone, usually very quick and helpful.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...