Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Replying to above  this was on the day that two store detectives approached me and my friend and took us into the back room and spoke to us when they explained they have been watching
    • as my learned friend above...and.. sadly because just like DCA's and initially yourself in this case, you believed they have some magical powers ...they DON'T. 85% of people blindly pay DCA's cause they know no better and think they are BAILIFFS. only the RETAILER can ever do court and none have done this on a silly member of joe public that did something stupid since the infamous 2012 Oxford case on retail loss. BAILIFFS can only ever be involved after you've been to court and lost a CCJ, fat chance re above... and anyway, no BAILIFF has any right of forced entry anyway on consumer debts even with a judgement so......... stop panicking and thinking everything that doesn't apply.. forget about them but p'haps a confidential GP visit might be a very good move... what slightly concerns me more here is:  who are 'them' that told you they'd reviewed a week of CCTV and come up with several shoplifting instances over that time amounting to the above? have you directly contacted or had contact from Sainsbury's? and know they HAVE done this? or is this DWF willy waving and they tricked you into  admitting several previous successful thefts... this is not the norm...  dx      
    • next step then await the N157 from her local court giving the time and date of a future hearing some month in the future. now she MUST file a witness statement 14 days (typically) to both the court and kearns .  so cant allow to much of a time lag before you are aware of that and get her WS done. wack us up 2 multipage pdf files please  one of what they returned for the CRP reply . and one for everything they sent back in 2022 you've found.  we do not need statements. ideally it would be nice to see their WS before hers is finally filed. dx  
    • Another interesting article in the Grauniad - Counterfeit barcode stamps furore carries echoes of Horizon scandal | Consumer affairs | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Royal Mail admits its scanners ‘make mistakes’ but stands by the process it uses to detect fakes as ‘robust’  
    • DWF can't do anything as they act for a client. In this case, Sainsbury's. Sainsbury's could take you to court and ATTEMPT to get a CCJ but it's unlikely. They had no interest in dealing with you at the time. All DWF can do is send out pointless threatograms. They'll threaten to divert an Iranian drone to your house if you don't pay. However, they can't attempt to get a CCJ against you. IGNORE THEM. It's more important now to understand why you were allegedly shoplifting, and you should speak with your GP and try and get yourself signposted to the support that's available.
  • 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

section 13.6 of the banking code.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5120 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

Well. I have been dealing with Clydesdale for years now and I have finally had enough. With the ICO assessment complete and written correspondance from them stating quite clearly that clydesdale have failed to provide information from my subject access request and are therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, I have decided to raise a court action.

 

The issue I am having is that the debt on the account was in dispute and therefore was covered by section 13.6 of the banking code. i.e the information should not have been entered into my credit file. However clydesdale have not just put 1 default on, they have done it twice....naughty naughty.

 

After my fight with abbey for the same thing I thought I would use section 13.6 again but logged on to the banking code site to find that it is now defunct from november 2009 and has been replaced with the Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook and Payment Services Regulations 2009 (who chose that name). Instead of a nice little flyer we have got a maze of pages on their badly designed site.

 

Can anyone actually tell me if there is a comparative regulation in the new pile of paper and where I would actually find it.

 

Cheers

 

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have actually just found the provisions in the new legislation. Section 13.6 of the banking code has been replaced by the lending code (http://www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk/docs/lendingcode.pdf)

 

Non credit related items have been taking over by the FSA Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook and Payment Services Regulations 2009. Credit related items including bank accounts and overdrafts are now under the Lending Code 2009.

 

Section 13.6 of the banking code stated:

 

We may give information to credit reference agencies

about the personal debts you owe us if:

 

• you have fallen behind with your payments;

• the amount owed is not in dispute; and

• you have not made proposals we are satisfied with

for repaying your debt, following our formal demand.

 

Section 3(35) of the Lending Code 2009 states:

 

Subscribers can give CRAs default information about a customer’s debts if:

 

*the customer has fallen behind with their payments

*the amount owed is not being disputed by the customer; and

*the customer has not made a proposal that satisfies the subscriber for repaying the debt following the subscriber’s formal demand.

 

Section 3 has detailed information regarding credit reference agencies and how banks should deal with them. The full lending code is available at

 

http://www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk/docs/lendingcode.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...