Jump to content

nat8808

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nat8808

  1. OK - that's a good idea. I'll sort something out with a DSAR to Aqua and see what happened to the debt .. Another, simple thing to do is to dig out my paperwork - I keep everything.. - and track any statuses I've overlooked and re-examine anything to do with Aqua. Thanks for your help so far Andy and DX!
  2. In the past, with that older debt, Cabot would make a new entry for the same debt but push the date of default forward by a couple of years so it was still on the file more than 6 years later. I would see that with other dcas too.. If this one has an incorrect date (but turns out to be still current) - can I get the date changed or should I asked for it to be removed (well, I already have requested that!) ?
  3. Ok - fair enough for the title ammendment! Thanks. The older stuff was defaulted on in 2011 and they made the claim in about 2017/18 by the time I'd contested it and all that, it was dropped in 2018 (withdrawn rather than struck-out - I probably should have pursued an official strike out?). That was from an old credit card debt too. It is possible then that it this particular entry is from an Aqua card .. they've purchased the debt and I've not been aware of the purchase, or at least not registered mentally that their communications a few years ago were about something new..
  4. Hi, Thanks for the reply. I only meant that the entry is fraudulent as there is no such thing as a Cabot Financial credit card... or is that the only way a dca can register a debt they bought? I'm not sure of the original creditor to be honest - might have been an Aqua card? I think that would have been the last thing I've defaulted on in my past.. everything else statute barred from poorer times 10 years ago or so.
  5. Not really - it's closer to being a report on who set fire to their pants and why. Turns out to have been people who wanted to get new pants out of doing so... Funny how there hasn't been much talk in the press about their pants being on fire since the election. Almost as if much of the press were fanning the flames of the pants for their own gain - owned by billionaire pant moguls ? Which is ironic, given that same section of press have spent so much time denying their man's pants were on fire (liar liar) !
  6. Hi all, Does anyone have good advice on how to best remove something that is fraudulent on your credit report? ClearScore is the one I'm looking at - (Equifax?) I have requested its removal but is that enough? I would presume Cabot to just come back and say it's real... IT is listed as a "Cabot Financial" credit card - with no data entered - claiming to be in default. They are a DCA and I have in the past had debt purchased by them. They don't even give credit cards, let alone being in a credit agreement with them, they purely have bought some debt from somewhere and I have no idea what it relates to - last dealing I had with them, was trying to striking out a claim in the small claims for debt from 2011 that was statute barred (I did that in about 2018) . That ended with Cabot informing the court they weren't pursuing it and longer. Any further tips that just requesting removal from the report?
  7. (If I were to argue it in a court) I would say that it is a fine - one reason it's an unfair term in the User Agreement - because they don't charge you an introduction fee if you exchange details after selling an item, they don't charge you an introduction fee if you give/state your business address and contact details in a listing to a potential buyer (giving your business details is a requirement for business accounts). Yet they *do* charge you a "final value fee" if you send someone a contact number even if you don't sell the item to them, the User Agreement specifically stating that the fee is for introducing you to a potential buyer via their platform. So, if they only charge you this introduction fee when they fear they will loose a commision from you, and then describe it as something other than an introduction fee, I think one can show that it's purpose is as a deterent and is therefore a fine. But yes.. they call it something else. Thanks for the re-assurance that it won't go on my credit file - I assumed that it would just because it would eventually go to a dca.
  8. In the short term, owing money to ebay will cause me problems I may have to swallow the fee / fine for now and then leave with an equal-sized debt at a later date. Not ideal way of working but that's what happens when companies deliberately act outside of your accessible legal framework in order to be a law unto themselves regarding user agreements and contracts. Tit for tat... and then of course another mark on the credit file that won't be removed for not being just or fair. Right old stitch-up from big companies..
  9. Hi all, I have a strange problem with ebay. I have been charged £93 as an "off-ebay sale fee" after I signed a message with a potential buyer with my number in brackets underneath. They wanted to talk about the item over the phone. The item was for sale for £980. I then sold it to another person, yes off ebay, but through an ad on another classified advert. Here is the wording of their policy: https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-agreement?id=4259#4. Abusing eBay Item #5. Fees: Is this a fair term? They're charging me £93 as an introduction fee simply because *I* provided contact info. The fee is included on my bill for next month. If I dont pay that bill, I wont be able to use ebay... and I have lots of things to sell. So I'd need some way of claiming it back afterward. Could anyone offer any advice?
  10. Hi, Sorry for not replying at the time- My time was running out for my response to the claim didn't have time to fill in the CAG form etc then get bogged down in questions about the specific details of my claim when it was a technical question as to whether the Letter of Claim was part of their submission to the court. I think I had to submit it that night or the next day.My response to the county court did ask for all the details that was lacking on the court claim form - I obviously can't properly respond legally without these details. In response, Mortimer and Clarke soon stated they were no longer pursuing in the claim. I should really make sure this is quashed on the court side of things too...does anyone know the name of the form for this? Thanks in advance
  11. Hi, I've received a County Court Business Centre claim from Mortimer and Clarke on behalf of Cabot. The description of what they're claiming is so very vauge and doesn't even mention an account number or any reference at all. It just states that it is regarding a claim for an amount arising from an agreement with a credit card company a rough date as to when they think an agreement was entered into, a statement that the debt was assigned and then "The claimant therefore claims £xxx costs" . And that is it. I had missed the Letter of Claim I had been sent which, now I've found and opened it, does give some more info. However, obviously I haven't responded to it within the 30 days. So.. in response now to the Court claim, do I ignore the info in the Letter of Claim and proceed as if it didn't exist? In other words, should I request all the lacking information in the court claim from Mortimer & Clarke under CPR 31.14 as I have done previously with an old Cabot claim or is the Letter of Claim part of precedings? Many thanks in advance for any advice.
  12. Cool. thanks - I'll have a look for it. Getting Eronious (my new name for them) letters myself now so want to keep ahead of things.
  13. (P.S. - has part of this thread gone missing? I received an email update from Jan 2nd saying there was a new post ... but there isn't, definately not the one I was emailed.)
  14. Gah, charlatans.. It's a real shame that nice brokers (like Peter Best Insurance who I use - well, I've only had good experience with them but have never had to make a claim) use companies like this. Perhaps it's the only available solution for small brokers to provide payment by installments?
  15. This might be redundant now but thanks for the question (which I didn't get around to answering sooner..). Annoyingly I can't find that default letter at the moment but it did mention a default under the consumer credit act but might not have specifically said section 87. Anyway, the reason the question is redundant in my personal case (although might be interesting more generally) is that I received a letter from the insurance broker themselves telling me I could pay the missing final payment to them directly, bypassing Close Brothers completely. This I did. So with no penalty fee paid at all and ignoring Close Brother's demands, since paying the broker directly I've heard nothing AT ALL from them.. In essence their threats and demands for payment of the penalty was all BS and essentially harassment. I'm going to follow up on reclaiming the bounced direct debit charge from my bank (£6) due to the breach of the Direct Debit Guarantee.
  16. I did want it which is why I allowed the payments to go through. However, that is completely different to those payments signifying you agree to every single clause in a contract you haven't signed - all it means is you agree to a basic exchange (you allow them the money, they provide the credit with their profit making fee which was about 15% on the remainder of the premium). It's like a verbal agreement when a contract hasn't been drawn up. If the company will only do bussiness if ALL the small print is agreed to, then it must wait for the contract to be signed before they take the money. Think of it the other way around - they are taking my money without a contract and agreeing to provide me with credit without the terms being agreed to by myself. Therefore they are demonstrating they are completely fine about that. In a contract, the two parties are of equal standing - they agree to take my money and provide the credit without the signature, I agree to pay them the money in exchange for the credit without agreeing to other,s finer terms. What you seem to be portraying is that one should automatically assume and agree to an unequal and unfair bussiness relationship whereby you must meet all their terms and assume they're entitled to ignore your rejection of their terms? That they can do what they want even when you don't sign a contract? That's the wrong mindset for consumer rights and advice in my opinion and teaching the opposite is kind of what consumer advice should be all about.
  17. I quite literally did not sign anything! This is not a claim but an indisputable fact! Just because you allow a service to be provided in exchange for payment DOES NOT automatically mean you are bound by every term in a contract they'd like you to sign but don't agree with. Just because someone or some company suggests some terms they'd like thrown in does not mean they must be accepted - this kind of thinking is what puts many consumers in an unnecessary bind and I'm surprised to read a user of CAG thinking this way.. Even when a contract HAS been signed, quite often many terms deemed to be unfair (e.g. as dx suggests) are not binding.. but you're suggesting they are all binding when a contract has not been signed?? What we have in place is some kind of implied contract of basic terms, a simple contract made by continuing action. There's a regular term for it but can't think what it is.. Sorry, you have the wrong end of the stick - I probably didn't explain it clearly. I have no issue with the insurer nor the insurance. Part of the insurance (about 3/4) was paid for by a loan from Close Premium Finance (a company of Close Brothers). It is the loan payments I didn't keep up by missing the final payment. Now they have said they've cancelled the WHOLE loan on the basis of one missing payment - not just asking me for the arrears but saying they will take the whole loan back - not sure exactly how they would do this but that's what is implied. Any normal loan would just chase for arrears hence it's a confusing and opaque situation. I'm sure part of the contract terms would give them my authority to cancel my insurance with the insurer on my behalf ... but again, I didn't agree to that specific term so they would NOT have my authority to do so and so if they know they don't have my authority but claim they do, that would be fraudulent.. however they may believe they do and so would be simply mistaken. I would have paid the arrears and sorted it out but they charged a fee on to arrears immediately and that is a violation of the Consumer Credit Act - a company is not allowed to add to the arrears a cost incurred because of the arrears itself, only for chasing the arrears or a consequence of the arrears, it's written plainly in the Act Section 86? 88? one of the two I think. But does the Consumer Credit Act apply if its only an implied contract? Do you mean the date to pay the arrears must be 14 days after the default notice? That they kind of did but the "arrears" was not just the arrears but arrears + a fee, a fee I didn't agree to and as you say would have been an unlawful anyway. Or did you mean that they must give you notice of being in arrears 14 days prior to a default notice? This they did not do. The very first letter was a default letter, sent just one day after the DD failed. And I thought that many DDS were re-presented 3 days after failure anyway. .. yet they appear not to want the payment but instead looking for an opportunity to add a fee first and foremost! As I say above, they most definitely have violated the Consumer Credit Act by adding the fee as part of the arrears amount. And aren't they required to tell you how to remedy the arrears after two issued payments before issuing a default? This default was instant the first day into arrears and then only by one issued payment.. I guess I'll try to speak to the insurer and see if the loan company can really claim the loan back 5 months later - problem is you just get lay people on the phone who don't know consumer rights and just tell you what they do, not what they SHOULD do, no matter how legally incorrect those actions might be .. the insurer doesn't want to end a beneficial arrangement with the finance company over consumer rights issues of a minority.
  18. Hi - not sure which forum this belongs to so will try here. Firstly (I say this first to make the situation clear) I deliberately did NOT sign a contract with these guys because I didn't agree with the terms. I was sent reminders to sign all the way up to the date of the first DD.. and then they duly took the first and subsequent DD payments without the agreement signed. (What is this type of contract called where some basic terms are implied by the exchange of money? "Implied Contract"?) this is for car insurance. My favoured insurance broker uses Close Premium Finance for payment installments via a credit agreement - they get the money upfront, you pay 5 monthly installments to the creditor. My final instalment of £47.51 didn't go through as I didn't have the funds. This was on 16th October. On 18th October I receive a default notice dated 17th now claiming £77.51 because of an added £30 fine as per the "agreeement" (which I didn't sign). Several days later they tried to take this from my account by adjusting the Direct Debit amount. I should say here also that I did not sign a Direct Debit agreement either with Close Brothers but only gave my bank details to the insurance broker for this purpose as part of the data they needed to enable payment by installment on their system. The default notice gave me until 6th November to pay this increased amount (the total called "arrears") or they would terminate the "agreement" (which I didn't sign..) . I still didn't have the money until this week - am self-employed and had a backlog of invoices to send out and be paid - and also busy so made no contact or payment. Today I received in the post a letter saying they have terminated the "agreement" and are threatening to demand the remaining six months' insurance premium from the insurance broker and pay themselves the arrears, now increased by a further £15 to £92. If they do this, they will both cancel my insurance, get £150 odd back from the insurer and take their £92 (and return £58 to me from what I understand). Yet I'm only £47.51 short of the full amount (£315 I think total - some £70 odd was paid direct to the broker upfront). I'm at a loss as what to do as I don't know where I stand! I have a few questions: - I did not sign the agreement deliberately so as not to be held to the penalties (they call them "fees" of course") so can they even default me at all and does the Consumer Credit Act come into force for ANY loan, whether you sign a contract with mention of it or not? - Can a creditor default someone after just one day and without sending a notice of arrears first? - By me allowing them to take the payments as scheduled and by them acting to take the money, do we have a contract at all and if so what are the terms? Can they automatically include their full terms or is it only a simple implied agreement of supplying the basic credit in exchange for the scheduled payments? - Have they violated Direct Debit rules by both not getting me to sign a mandate explicitly and by then changing the amount from the schedule that was set out? At no point had I agreed to or been informed of a variable Direct Debit. - What steps can I take to prevent them from taking the remaining premium and paying themselves the fees? Or better still stop them from cancelling my insurance with the broker? (although they've stated they've cancelled the loan?) Any help would be much appreciated as I've no idea as to my rights here or what steps to take (I realise thought the amounts may be trivial compared to some other's difficulties!).
  19. I'd agree with you - but the test seemed to imply it was fine as long as the url it linked to looked right by your own judgement..
  20. Haha... Hyperlinks are what make the internet the internet, without links it's back to some kind of Ceefax-style, Prestel dial-up service (if people remember Prestel).
  21. 7 out of 10 for me. Seems I'm too suspicious and the test is americanised - no idea what FDIC is for example - nor do I get an url at the bottom of my emails as per the test (so no idea what that url relates to). I take issue with number 7 though, Chase Bank: Test says this is legit and says the reason for this is 1) it blanks out the account number and leaves the final four, 2) it uses your real name 3) link is legit. Well.. 1) This is a test so the number doesn't exist so I can't check it against a non-existent card - I've had phishing emails with random numbers you're meant to not pay close attention to - it makes it look real at first glance and will be there to hook people with similar numbers, just needs a few successes out of millions of failures to make it worthwhile. Who knows their numbers of by heart and who will go get their bank card out to check? With that scrutiny the phisher has probably failed already. 2) The recipient's email address is THEIR NAME @gmail ! I've an email account with my name as the address and so a lot of phishing and spam uses this name taken direct from the email address! 3) The name on the email doesn't use a capital for the surname - futher sign that the name has been gleened from some other available information without human oversight, such as at the bank (you wouldn't expect your name at the bank to be stored in lower case would you?) 4) You can easily make an email display a legit looking url but for it to go off elsewhere - depends on the email program you're using. I personally wouldn't trust that Chase bank email or any of the links contained within. If I were really interested in whether something was real, I'd do an IP lookup on the originating IP address in the full header which will often tell you if it's from a country you wouldn't expect.. Otherwise I'd just ignore the links in an email and log on to a service directly via the browser - being lazy by clicking on links in an email from an unknown source is unnecessary risk.
  22. Just read through the thread. The message I think some where trying to get across is this: Once a debt is in the hands of a DCA it is a new beginning, forget ALL that went on with the original lender - DCAs are a completely different ball game. When has a DCA EVER gone to court? do not act like you did with the SLC. I personally would forget deferment completely now - it's essentially meaningless in the hands of a DCA and they will play more and more games to get you into arrears to start the harassment. Trying to constantly dodge going into arrears I bet will be MORE stressful than purposefully allowing them to put you in arrears. Both are forms of harassment why bother jumping through their hoops? They can only act like a DCA fully once you start signing their own drafts of agreements and therefore move away from their obligations regarding the old SLC agreement should they even be able to prove that you signed it. By signing you are also of course agreeing that you owe this NEW company the full amount - that's not necessarily the case because they only paid 18% the loan value. In my view, signing the agreement is comparable to a confidence trickster trying to persuade you to hand over some money - you can be cautious and ask for certain re-assurances and promises but just continuing the correspondence is leading you down a path of being conned a some point. That said, I broke communications with SLC about 10 years ago because of the bureaucracy of the deferment system itself - I wasn't going to subject myself to that stress, remembering to defer, fighting to defer, jumping through hoops for my right to defer. I've since had 10 years and counting stress free regarding student loans (I wouldn't be earning enough to pay back anyway). Well that is until Erudio bought the loan book but I guess it will remain stress free other than having to read up anew just in case.
  23. And the SAR should be to T-Mobile? It would seem to me that I should tackle the problem directly with them first and then later discus mobiles.co.uk's poor service once it's established I've not entered into a contract with T-Mobile.
×
×
  • Create New...