Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If you're set on pursuing the receiver then a complaint to his governing body (if any) might be a sensible low risk first step. You need to confirm what qualifications he actually has. I don't believe an LPA Receiver necessarily needs to be a licensed insolvency practioner, although he may be. Or he may a chartered surveyor. I note you say "LPA" and "fixed charge" receiver, but aren't those two different appointments with different remits? What relevant powers are given in the mortgage terms and security? Or if that's unclear then how was the appointment described to you? Ducking back to the comment I made earlier, you consulted a solicitor who advised a claim against the receiver. How did he advise that you do so?   Some background reading (accepting it's from 2013 and you may be working off more recent preceded overturning this) .. LPA receivers owe very limited duty to borrowers; a reminder WWW.WRIGHTHASSALL.CO.UK As lenders rely more and more on their powers to appoint an LPA Receiver, a recent case has clarified the Receiver’s obligations, both to the lender and its borrower.  
    • Good Law Project are trying to force HMG to release details of how Sunak's hedge fund made large profits from Moderna. Government ordered to disclose Sunak’s hedge fund emails - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG Good Law Project has won a battle with the Treasury after it tried to suppress emails between Rishi Sunak and the hedge fund he founded.  
    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
  • 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

Incorrect Reporting on Cahoot DMP **RESOLVED**


Confused Consumer
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2925 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 I'll try to keep this brief.

 

7 years ago in Nov 2008 I ran into difficulty due to my husband leaving.

 

I had a cahoot credit card and bank account with overdraft. I asked them to freeze interest and fees so I can get my house in order.

 

They refused and referred me to a Debt Management Company. I approached CCCS. I didn't want to get out of the debt,I just wanted some help with clearing it down.

 

At the point the DMP started I had already missed 3 - 4 payments on each of the two debts. The DMP included minimal token payments. I increased these as I could over the years.

 

 

The bank account was cleared in 2013,

the CC in 2014.

 

I recently checked my credit file and was disappointed to see how Cahoot has been reporting this.

 

Bank Account - Showed years of 6 late payments each month and a Default was added in Dec 2010!

 

Credit Card - Showed reporting from 2011 only with 4 months of missed payments until settled in 2013

 

If for both the bank account and credit card Defaults had been correctly added in 2008 when I originally entered into a DMP then the debts would no longer appear on my credit file.

 

As it stands despite taking the responsible route of paying the debt off - I am actually worse off than if i'd not paid anything at all.

 

Seriously!!

 

Reading the Information Commissioners Office Guidelines Defaults should be added at the point there is 3 missed payments or at the point I no longer meet terms and agreement.

 

As fees and interest were frozen this should have been in 2008. Paying them back as resulted in a worse scenario for myself due to how they've reported this.

That's not exactly treating customers fairly its in fact penalising me for taking responsibility and paying them back.

 

I've pulled a letter together to Santander complaints,

their CEO and their COO to request that they report accurately and in truth the situation on my credit file.

 

I've specifically asked for a Default date to be amended on the Bank account to 2008 and one be added for the Credit card for 2008. If they do this both debts should remove from my credit file.

 

Just a note...I've not had any other credit since 2008 and have acted responsibly to improve my finances so I could apply for a mortgage now that I am clear.

No such luck thanks to Cahoot reporting!

Edited by Confused Consumer
Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly if you read the ICO guidelines of today

 

 

you'll find that they now make no ref to the timely default reporting.

 

 

as this occurred some years previous

you might be lucky.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't aware there had been updated guidelines. If it still mentions that a DMP should not disadvantage a customer then it's still a strong argument I think.

 

It can't ever be encouraged to not pay at all as opposed to making arrangements to pay back. I'll let you know how I get on though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having same problem with my CRA file, showing default that must be about 2 years later than it should be, in fact after Santander took over the accounts.

 

Is it still not the case that under sections 86a-f of CCA it appears that they should issue the Default notice within 14 days of 2 months non payment ?

Don\'t let the B**tards grind you down

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope a dn is simply permission to issue a default

They don't have to nor stick to anytime limit anymore

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Just an update...pretty pleased with this result!

 

 

I sent the letters of complaint on Thursday and had a call from Santander yesterday.

They've agreed to change the default to 6 months after I first missed a payment.

 

 

This took me to May 2009 which still achieved the same result for me but meant they were within their own guidelines of default after 6 months

My credit files have been instantly updated. So are now clear and I'm now ready to apply for the right mortgage

 

 

They guy from Santander was pretty honest and said this is a common issue but it's difficult for them to get the right balance.

Some people never want the default and complaint about that then others complain when one wasn't added.

 

 

I fed back that from my perspective its about the outcome for the consumer.

..we should never be worse off than not paying any debts back at all.

 

 

I do think that DMP companies need to be clearer with their customers.

If I had understood the ramifications I would have been able to make an informed decision at the time of starting the DMP,

of whether to proceed and request that defaults are added to Santander or to declare bankruptcy etc.

 

 

But to all out there having a credit file nightmare...they are reasonable...it's just about how you approach them

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey great result.

 

well done.

 

makes a change for satans bank!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well done!

 

I have been digging up some paperwork and statements and find I was issued with 3 default notices from Santander all on the same account, think I will have to send a SAR, as I think Cahoot may also have done the same.

Don\'t let the B**tards grind you down

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well got reply from Santander where they admit last payment made was December 2009 and default was issued July 2011

 

They say this is correct and will not be altered, surely the new CRA guidelines are not retrospective?

Don\'t let the B**tards grind you down

Link to post
Share on other sites

For information purposes, I found this on the ICO website which does deal with the reporting of defaults.

 

http://www.scoronline.co.uk/sites/default/files/high_level_prinicples_document_final.pdf

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

The clause below,taken from the guidelines seem to cover this, I also believe that when the non payment took place (Dec 2009) Cahoot were still in existence and it is their failure that needs to be pinpointed.

 

The type of loan (Flexiloan) may also be subject of the exceptions.

 

4. If you fall into arrears on your account, or you do not keep to the revised terms of an arrangement, a default may be recorded to

show that the relationship has broken down.

 

As a general guide, this may occur when you are 3 months in arrears, and normally by the time you are 6 months in arrears.

 

There are exceptions to this which may result in a default being recorded at a later stage,such as secured or long term loans e.g. mortgages, or if the product operates in a more flexible way e.g. current accounts, student loans, home credit.

Don\'t let the B**tards grind you down

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...