Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • 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.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations 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.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...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   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). 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.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

Barclays Partner Finance and DRO - they wont mark the Account Correctly***Resolved***


Rayban
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1954 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

 

Just looking for a little bit of additional advice.

 

In October 2016 I had a Debt Relief Order (DRO) which subsequently ended (Discharged?) one year later, October 2017.

 

I recently took a look at my Credit Reports and note all but two of my creditors had stopped reporting on my files at the start of my DRO, marked a Default at time of DRO and marked my accounts as Closed and Partially Satisfied or Satisfied with a zero balance. All correct I believe.

 

However two creditors (Barclays Partner Finance & Vanquis) had continued (up to present day) marking the accounts as Open, full balance owing and still being marked as defaulting each month. I did a little research and found out (hopefully correctly) that these accounts should be marked as closed, zero balance and Satisfied/Partially Satisfied or similar.

 

I wrote to both companies requesting they correct my files.

Vanquis, to my surprise, updated my credit files straight away and is now correct.

 

However, Baraclys so far has not.

I wrote to them in October this year giving 28 days to resolve the issue. No reply.

 

I then wrote again to Barclays, again giving 28 days, this time via Recorded Delivery (November 2018) and had a reply they are looking into it.

 

I received a letter today saying they are still “investigating” and I will hear in another 28 days whether it has been resolved or if they need more time.

 

My understanding was they were supposed to resolve this within 28 days.

They are now moving towards at least triple this.

According to the ICO website, I will need a Final Response letter before contacting them.

 

I am seeking an answer to find out how long should I give Barclays to resolve this simple straight forward (if my research is correct!) issue? They could theoretically keep requesting further time indefinitely.

 

I suppose with the debts still being shown as Open Accounts, in Default monthly and still full balance owing, they could even sell these debts on (worse case scenario I know, but possible I guess).

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

no you don't need a final response

what you should have done is given them 14 days to resolve the issue and if not rectified by then you with raise a serious complaint with the ICO and seek financial compensation.

 

I would send them a letter telling them as above, but that there 14 days have already expired and you are now raising the complaint immediately.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

thread retitled and moved to the Barclays forum

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

Even if you resolve the above with Barclays...A debt relief order will stay on your credit file for six years from the date it was approved.

 

When you enter into a DRO, if you live in England and Wales, it’s recorded on the Individual Insolvency Register. This is an online database that has information about bankruptcies, IVAs and DROs.

 

The Individual Insolvency Register can be searched online. When your DRO is approved, you’ll be added to the database. Your details will remain on the database for the duration of your DRO and three months after it has finished. This usually means that you’ll be on the register for about 15 months.

 

So this may make it difficult to take out credit during this time even if you resolve the above...although I agree it shouldn't be showing.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

no you don't need a final response

what you should have done is given them 14 days to resolve the issue and if not rectified by then you with raise a serious complaint with the ICO and seek financial compensation.

 

I would send them a letter telling them as above, but that there 14 days have already expired and you are now raising the complaint immediately.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

thread retitled and moved to the Barclays forum

 

Thanks for this.

I checked online to make a complaint on the ICO website, one tickbox was regarding a Final Response, which I ticked no and the message was to wait for that. That's why I was/am frustrated.

 

Either way, they have had more than enough time and providing my facts are correct about the way they are reporting on my credit file, it's time I sent off the complaint, not waiting for a Final Response letter. It's beyond.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you resolve the above with Barclays...A debt relief order will stay on your credit file for six years from the date it was approved.

 

When you enter into a DRO, if you live in England and Wales, it’s recorded on the Individual Insolvency Register. This is an online database that has information about bankruptcies, IVAs and DROs.

 

The Individual Insolvency Register can be searched online. When your DRO is approved, you’ll be added to the database. Your details will remain on the database for the duration of your DRO and three months after it has finished. This usually means that you’ll be on the register for about 15 months.

 

So this may make it difficult to take out credit during this time even if you resolve the above...although I agree it shouldn't be showing.

 

Andy

 

Thanks.

Yea I realise it's not going to make a difference and I'm not asking them to remove the truth, however the way they are reporting is wrong and there is potential for these debts to be sold on.

 

Whether it makes a difference to creditors showing a closed settled account or not doesn't really matter to me as I'm not interested in going into debt again.

It's just frustrating that Barclays feel they can report incorrectly (and get away with it), they seem to be making a meal out of resolving this simple issue.

I just think that the data held should be factually correct and they should obey the rules/guidlines, just like all my other creditors have.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just to update.

 

I sent off my complaint to the ICO.

Yesterday had a call from Barclays (whether that was because of ICO complaint or just finally responding to my complaint I’m not sure) who have finally updated my Credit Files and “closed” both accounts.

 

Apparently they were “unaware” that a DRO was issued and completed - I’m a little bit cynical over that claim.

Nevertheless it seems to be resolved.

They gave £50 compensation for the “inconvenience”, so that’s something!

 

Cheers for the advice, was helpful to make sure I was barking up the right tree.

Cheers.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

showing it as closed is no guarantee they wont sell it on.

not sure where you got that from.

did you successfully complete the DRO?

 

well done on the CRA update mind..good result.

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

Thread title updated ...well done.

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

showing it as closed is no guarantee they wont sell it on.

not sure where you got that from.

did you successfully complete the DRO?

 

well done on the CRA update mind..good result.

 

Not sure I said showing it as closed means they won’t sell it on.

 

Nevertheless, my Credit Files have been correctly updated (which was my aim) I would think that Barclays would not be daft enough to now sell it on, especially as they have agreed the DRO was successfully completed and ended October 2017, and they are showing a ZERO balance on my Credit File.

 

Whilst it would be a nuisance, if I ever heard off another debt collector for these debts I would not be bothered or even correspond with them, they have no chance of getting a penny out of me.

 

I think this is the end of this matter, and a win!

 

Just want to add a big thank you for all who have taken time out of their day to reply to me and I have appreciated your advice/comments.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they've shown it as zero then nothing to sell

its the ones that use the partial settlement summary note you've gotta watch

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

if they've shown it as zero then nothing to sell

its the ones that use the partial settlement summary note you've gotta watch

 

Ah, ok. That’s interesting to know. Better recheck all my files! Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...