Jump to content

2Grumpy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    3,035
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 2Grumpy

  1. If your contract ran out in May then presumably you could have phoned in April to give the notice. If that is the case you were provided incorrect information. It seems perverse that you can't provide more than 31 days notice, but that may be a defect in their systems that will only let them record that you have just started the final month, or it could be to purposely avoid accepting more than 31 days notice Your credit file will probably get trashed over this, unless they back down or you take them to court with the removal of the adverse remarks as part of your claim
  2. It also shows that RLP have a single script and can't deviate from it. Presumably they had no answer! If they can't respond to a valid point with something other than their next letter then even they aren't pretending that it's any more than an income generation scheme. Perhaps their chief advisor was out of office?
  3. Is it still the case that only Boots could take court action to recover their losses? Presumably they can't claim staff time for the same reason as they can't with shoplifting? Presumably Boots won't be involving the police because of the amount involved and the obvious defence
  4. What is the background to this? They don't normally let you pay for any stolen items ...
  5. Their "requirements" concerning confirming your identity are rather onerous. They have to ensure that you are the correct person, but if it's from an address that they recognise, I don't see why they are asking for so much. It looks like a delaying tactic to me. The same with the PO - they could have filled in the payee & crossed it. Write reminding them of their failure to respond to your SAR in the prescribed time allowed - tell them how long they have had - and that you require a response by . If that fails, a LBA telling them that you are taking them to court to force them to resp
  6. Be aware that simply paying will not remove the default. You should also be aware that vodaphone will appoint itself as prosecution, judge and jury in this and the best that you can hope for from them is "to remove it as a gesture of goodwill" if you can show that they were obviously wrong to apply the default in the first place. There is no independent person to arbitrate here. Even the DCA will tell you to contact vodaphone because "they can't touch the data ... even if it's wrong"
  7. We agree that data can be shared with CRAs for specific purposes. Presumably the CRA is storing data on behalf of the company that we supply data to and would be responsible for ensuring that the data is only used for the purposes that it was provided for, and only the relevant data is disclosed, depending on the purpose that the searching company intends to use it for. IMHO the CRAs are being too simplistic in the way that they receive, store & share our data & don't take into account the usage as supplied or as searched for. They just share all data with anyone without reg
  8. That's probably what I would do - and tell Lowlifes when I was in that position. You have nothing to lose by accepting their kind offer. They must be aware of your position, the amount charges and are letting you know that you have finally got there.
  9. If they are doing it as a "gesture of goodwill" they are probably trying to avoid the possibility of a court claim for any losses that you have suffered as a result ...
  10. Presumably the data can only be used for the purpose that it was provided. There will be a clause allowing the company to share data with a credit reference agency but not to share it or allow access to it for any reason not listed in the contract. Likewise when authorising a search, the search would be for specific data for a specific reason, not a trawl through the credit file for anything useful that can be sold on.
  11. Most likely you under-estimated your expenditure in lots of areas and missed others out. You can look at it another way. You both have incomes, you both contribute towards the household budget, but (presumably) only your wife has these debts. You will also have some items of expenditure entirely for your wife & entirely for yourself. If you split contribution to the joint expenditure either 50-50 or in proportion to incomes, that plus expenditure entirely on her would be her outgoings. Subtract from your OH's income and you have her surplus. Take a proportion of that an
  12. Mistakes happen - though probably less frequently if they actually care or give a ****
  13. Given that there isn't the cost of the phone to recover, I don't see why they can't end the contract early. Anything else is just greed on their part - getting something for nothing. Worth while trying again asking "why not" and what their losses would be if they did terminate the contract early If that fails - email the MD
  14. or the cost of insurance fall as a result of savings stopping this practice, balanced by an increase due to the fall in income from no longer being able to overcharge other companies in the same way. it's one big roundabout (but not the sort where fraudsters intentionally brake, causing you to run into the back of them so that they can make an insurance claim)
  15. I gather that you made payments to a £700 debt in 2009 that was already SB. If Lowell's hadn't contacted you about the £1200 debt prior to 2014, how could they claim that payments that you made to them in 2009 be towards that debt? Wait for the CCA response. A SAR to Lowell might uncover their tricks if they do hold a valid CCA, alternatively a letter asking them to explain why they are claiming that payments made t one account had been applied to another that they hadn't made you aware of. Do you have notices of assignment for these accounts?
  16. A blank postal order is like cash. There's nothing to stop them using a pen rather than crayons to fill it out themselves ...
  17. 500 is a lot for the orange debt. You might try arguing that this includes a very large amount for services not supplied The usual with mobiles is to recover outstanding bills (fair enough) plus cost of phone & inclusive usage, but they aren't up front about that. My argument is that you shouldn't be expected to pay for usage that hasn't been supplied
  18. My understanding is that the real issue is that you dispute the 2 bills of approx £100 and the charges added afterwards. Did you have itemised billing or was it just a total? I would write to Orange and tell them that you disputed their bills. Also tell them that you had to cancel the DD because you disputed the bill & that you no longer have the bills, but you will point out the disputed items if they provide fully itemised copies. It is probably a good time to say that you don't expect to have to pay for any periods when you were prevented from using their service You
  19. Theft requires intent. If you return something picked up by your little one it shows a total absence of intent as well as a high degree of honesty. I doubt that even RLP would even consider going for their 40 pieces of silver in this case! I can't see Boots risking the extremely bad publicity that would result in them sending the OP's details to RLP.
  20. You hadn't committed any crime, any wrongdoing of any kind. While you were in TKMax you should have been free to leave at any time Thugs employed by the store prevented your OH leaving - that's unlawful imprisonment & assault by the sounds of things. It might be worth sending TKMaxx a copy of the RLP letter & an invoice for a very large amount to settle this, plus a little something from RLP for chancing their arm. That's on top of the complaint against the police.
  21. So the account is still owned by Orange / EE - who are the only people who could start any court action - but they won't So this is pretending to be a letter before action. You can legitimately reply with a CPR request Orange will ignore the recommendations of a failed DCA. Moorcroft are trying to suggest that they can instruct solicitors directly. They can, but not to start any action against you! Unless it's in the contract then they can whistle for that. If there's a debt to be paid, always pay the OC Have you had bills to support all of t
  22. Presumably the other party to the joint loan could use the fact that they have a ccj against you as a defense? That would mean that they got paid twice & would be like a split claim.
  23. Sounds very dodgy I would be telling them that they have the wrong number, ** edited out misguided advice **. How can they decide that the phone number they have is correct but everything else needs to be confirmed?
  24. Mainly because Boots might not want to re-sell things things such as cosmetics - which this sort of is. I wouldn't worry too much if I found that I accidentally hadn't paid for an item of groceries from my usual store that I hadn't paid for because, over the years, I have not returned stuff that was poor quality or where 1 item of 12 was missing from a pack or I realised that I had been overcharged but did nothing about it. I would just see it as evening up the score. I was just making the point in case the OP is in the same position with Boots.
×
×
  • Create New...