Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kraygerson

  1. Hi, The matter is currently being pursued by the claim management company I have dealt with from the off; Broker Assistance. I will be chasing them up this week and will post updates as soon as there is news. Good luck with yours - these insurance companies take the proverbial.
  2. Thanks for the reply. Love the username, by the way. (Tobermory sends his regards!) To be honest, I'm not keen on compromise. They didn't inspect the car and have had ample time to voice concerns over the valuation. They never did so. It took me querying the figure on the cheque to bring any of this to light. I am told they would not be able to do this if they were members of the ABI - which they are not. I'm hoping they're just trying it on, as the saying goes.
  3. Hello all, A few weeks back my car was rear-ended while I was stationary in a line of traffic. The other party accepted full liability without hesitation. My car was deemed a category 'D' write-off and initially valued at a figure I deemed unacceptably low. The valuation came in on a Friday afternoon and by midday Monday I had been in contact with the assessing engineer. I sent him several adverts for cars genuinely comparable to my own in terms of age, mileage, etc and he revised the valuation. Last Friday I received a cheque for the lesser amount from the third party's insurers - Swiftcover. I immediately queried this with my inurer's claims handlers. The feeling was that somehow the original report with the lesser valuation must have been sent to Swiftcover - an error. This week it transpires that Swiftcover are actually disputing the independent assessor's valuation. The basis of their argument is their own Glass's guide valuation and that they would have placed a higher salvage value on my car. In essence they are saying 'We think it is worth this much and are paying no more'. My insurer's claims handlers will pursue them and at this stage are obtaining evidence from the assessing engineer. Have any of you ever come across a case like this? It strikes me as outrageously cheeky!
  4. Can I just check that I have this correct? Statutory time limit for DCA's response to request for CCA/default notice/statement of account: 10 + 2 days After this time the matter is 'in dispute' After 28 days the DCA is in default (is this 28 days from day 1, or 28 days in addition to the initial 12?) Is there a link anyone could kindly provide that sets all this stuff out clearly, in one place? Thanks!
  5. Evening all, Just a quick update. I sent off a letter to Cabot and received what is no doubt a standard response, in which they stated they are confident they will be able to send me the requested information within 12 days. Should be interesting ... Bazooka Boo fraud is what I am thinking, though if my suspicions are correct, it will have been perpetrated by someone very close to me and may be difficult to legally disassociate myself from. Hence the approach I am taking - assume there is something to it and find out as much information as I can, in the first instance. Cabot have had their 12 days, so I'll be writing to them again.
  6. Hello again. Thanks for the reply, twofoot. Naturally, the goal is to get the default off my file. But as previously mentioned, I have reason to suspect there may be something to this. I do not feel it would be wise to threaten Cabot with legal action for an invalid entry to my credit file when there is a chance it effectively got there courtesy of a former housemate. I need more information - at the moment I don't even know what this alleged card is/was! Am I correct in thinking that because the alleged account was started in 2005, Cabot would not be permitted to supply a reconstituted CCA in response to a request?
  7. Bazooka Boo, Thanks for the reply. That pretty much sums up my initial reaction! But on reflection, I felt I should try to find out a bit more. Circa 2005 we had a housemate and, without wishing to go into the matter further, I have reason to suspect there may be more to this than meets the eye. My details may have been used without my consent to open an account of some kind. Hence the decision to request for a true copy of the CCA, a statement of the account and, for completeness, a copy of the default notice. My research into Cabot's modus operandi leads me to doubt that they will be able to provide any of the requested information. But who knows? Do you know the legal position on copies of CCAs? Must the include the account opener's signature?
  8. Good evening, Apologies if these questions have been asked before. I did a bit of searching, but the plethora of information is a bit overwhelming. I recently subscribed to Experian's Credit Expert service. I looked at my credit record and there is one blot: a default, registered by Cabot Financial. It pertains to a credit/store card. I do not recognise this and am keen to do something about it. I am about to send a CCA request to Cabot, with a postal order of £1.00 for the statutory fee. I am also going to request a true copy of the default notice, which (obviously!) I never received. The account in question was supposedly started in 2005. Am I right in thinking that Cabot are obligated to supply a copy of the agreement bearing my signature? Any other thoughts/advice will be greatly appreciated.
  9. Well now, that is a good question. All I know is that it pertains to a bank I have not used for about ten years. I held a student account with them. At the time, I was a mature student and financial difficulties forced me out of university. There followed a very difficult period and I ended up with a rather large overdraft, swelled by bank charges added when they switched me to a regular account. Lowell/Red's initial letter stated that the account had been sold to them. As I recall, the bank closed that account without notifying me - just as I had found a job! It was a loooong time ago. (I am aware of the Limitation Act 1980!)
  10. Thanks for the reply. I fully intend to contest the debt and have no desire to evade the process server - should one ever materialise. The alleged debt is for a little over £1400. Given the costs associated with making an individual bankrupt, I cannot see it being worth their while going down that route. Assuming, of course, they can prove that: 1. the debt exists 2. I am liable for it 3. they have the right to pursue it 4. it is not statute barred I will keep the thread up to date as developments occur.
  11. I have read the names of this despicable t**d of a company on these illustrious boards a few times. I am currently dealing with them. Towards the end of September they wrote to me regarding an alleged debt purchased from HSBC. I responded promptly and denied knowledge of / liability for the debt. I also requested some details - the nature of the debt, the amount, details of most recent payments, etc. I heard nothing further from them. Until today, that is. They now claim they sent a Statutory Demand and that the the deadline for its return has passed. Naturally I am about to send off a reply, stating that I did not receive the demand and reminding them that I dispute the debt. Once again, I am asking them to provide details of most recent payments. I have also asked them how and when the demand was sent. If other, related threads are anything to go by, they will doubtless have sent it by second class post (if at all!). I guess my question is this - should they wish to try and take matters further, what might the legal position be for someone who did not receive a Statutory Demand and consequently was not in a position to request for it to be set aside?
  12. I have some experience of car auctions. There is absolutely NO WAY that the car you described would have fetched just £663. Not even on a bad day. I smell bailiff bs here.
  13. We are being contacted by a DCA in respect of a historic, disputed debt to a catalogue company. Yes, they have recently bought it. The matter has previously been poorly handled by another DCA. Due to their arrogance, we delighted in running rings around them. Though the matter was already statute barred, they persisted. Eventually we tired of the game and forced them to back off after they failed to provide a true copy of the CCA. We have no wish to go through all that malarkey again. The matter is well and truly statute barred. I fully intend to mention this in the letter that I am writing. However, I feel as though I should add a deterrent, as some of these companies simply do not know when to quit. I am considering mentioning the above, minus specific details, such as the name of the company concerned. Should I: Stick to saying "It is statute barred, so bugger off" Give an outline of our dealings with the other DCA, as a warning that we know our rights and will not hesitate to exercise them I cannot help but feel option 1 is not strong enough. Thoughts?
  14. A very interesting post. The entire Liability Order process does appear contradictory to the very foundation of our legal system, insofar as it is possible to obtain one without hearing a defence. Unfortunately, once said Order has been obtained, the (alleged) debtor faces a severe uphill battle. "We say you are liable. The Court agrees. Therefore you are liable."
  15. Interesting reading. Thank you. Although I have trawled their web site, I have never before seen that document. That said, it took so long to load that perhaps I had previously attempted to view it, but given up!
  16. Yet they are already doing so (deducting from JSA), for a separate year's outstanding Council tax. Then you will be even more surprised to learn that we are. This is what makes the matter all the more nonsensical - they need only look on their own system to see that we receive all of that. Not that I want to, mind ... I'm desperately trying to regain control of my life. But that is another matter. Thank you. Yes, I am aware that I am classed as such and this is going to form of my argument as to why they should take control of the matter, as opposed to handing it over to bailiffs. It's silly - they take it back from one firm, only to hand it over to the next ... I cannot help but suspect that either someone has screwed up, or they are being vindictive. Thanks for the replies.
  17. Yes, still in receipt of JSA. Before ... during ... after ... it does not appear to matter to my local authority. They're being b***ards about it. As far as I know, there is nothing stating that they must not pass the matter over if a debtor is on benefits. I will probably start another thread about my battle to persuade my Council to take the matter from the bailiffs' hands. I have been successful once, with Stanford & Green. These new chaps have already made one slip up. There is hope ... I think!
  18. As per title, really - pertaining to a Council tax debt. My wonderful local authority took the matter out of the hands of Stanford & Green a little while ago, following my complaints about their questionable (putting it mildly!) conduct. Given that I was/am in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance and that they had already made an attachment to benefit for an earlier Council tax debt, I was lead to believe that the same would be done. In fact, a lady in their recovery department said as much to me. Cue sighs of relief - no more bailiffs! Wrong. In their wisdom, the have handed it over to another firm - Phoenix Collections Ltd. Cue sighs of despair and much hair tugging. I am attempting to persuade them to take the matter back from this new firm, but, in the mean time, was wondering if anyone here has experience of/dealings with Phoenix. TIA.
  19. When a local authority succeeds in obtaining a liability order for Council tax, they normally pass the matter to a firm of bailiffs, who will be tasked with collecting outstanding monies. These act as though they have carte blanche to add all manner of dreamt up charges and generally make a debtor's life miserable. This I understand. Here is where I need some help, please. Suppose the local authority.. no, I really must stop that .. . bailiffs commence action, but for whatever reason do not make much progress. The bailiffs pass the matter back to the Council, who passes it to another firm of bailiffs and so on and so forth. Time passes. Now, almost 10 years have elapsed since the liability order was obtained. Is there a time limit for these things? Does a liability order 'expire'? If so, what happens then? Can the Council simply obtain another one? What should a person who finds themselves in such a position do? All advice appreciated. Definitive answers particularly welcome.
  20. Applications from those with criminal records are particularly welcome. (snigger)
  21. Thank you for that information. Hmm ... interesting. eBay seem to amend their user agreement every so often. Doubtless, the vast majority do not read it, as in totality it is LARGE. The point being that at some stage, it has changed to include a link to their fees policy. Their fees policy contains the following: Might this constitute express contractual provision? Or would you say it falls short of 2.10 © by not actually giving an indication of the amount payable? Don't get me wrong - I very much doubt IJ will want to press the issue too far, as, at best, they're on shaky ground once the fees have actually been paid. However, I am one of those people who simply likes to know!
  22. Aha! That's another number to add to my little list.
  23. Google does not recognise it ... Call it, from a withheld number! To make it worth your while, you can belch down the phone before you hang up, if you wish.
  • Create New...