Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ads_uk

  1. Tried to edit but wouldnt let me: (pg 7) Statement date 02/10/2015 - New Balance = 231.94 (CR 25.10 / DR 51.94) (pg 7) Statement date 02/11/2015 - New Balance = 197.72 (CR 231.94 / DR 197.92) (pg 7/8) Statement date 02/12/2015 - New Balance = 183.22 (CR 90.00 / DR 75.30) <- Over limit charge applied 18/12 for going over on 17/12 but payment of £65 made 10days later in same month) (pg .8) Statement date 03/01/2016 - New Balance = 195.78 (CR 25.91 / DR 38.47) (pg 8/9) Statement date 02/02/2016 - New Balance = 202.70 (CR 25.78 / DR 38.48) (pg 9) Statement date 02/03/2016 - New Balance = 249.02 (CR 26.76 / DR 45.08 this total = 18.32) <--- Balance should be 202.70 + 18.32 = 221.02 ----- Diff 28.00 (pg 9/10) Statement date 02/04/2016 - New Balance = 233.66 (CR 100.00, DRs 84.64 total = -15.36) <--- should be 221.02 -15.36 = 205.66 (pg 10) Statement date 02/05/2016 - New Balance = 232.73 (CR 50.00, DR 49.07 total = -0.93) <--- should be 205.66 - 0.93 = 204.73 This £28.00 difference goes on (I'm into 2018 atm) and there have been Overlimit charges applied where I've been inside the limit if this mysterious £28.00 is removed. Am I missing something with it? pg7-10.pdf
  2. Sorry to bring this post back up. Had a response to my request to remove defaults - denied, they said that they register everything correctly and it's Equifax that should report the dates. It kind of got me down, so I had a clean up of paperwork - and come across the SAR I requested from them in April. I did read through it at the time, but Apr was a bit of a crap month for me - pain meds, kept me sleeping most of the time, so couldn't really focus. Anyway just thought I'd have a quick look through it again and I've spotted an error. The attached is the Transaction extract that they sent through, broken down into sections by statement date. Is it just me or is the New Balance (End balance) for each month incorrect? (pg 7) Statement date 02/10/2015 - New Balance = 231.94 (CR 25.10 / DR 51.94) (pg 7) Statement date 02/11/2015 - New Balance = 197.72 (CR 231.94 / DR 197.92) (pg 7/8) Statement date 02/12/2015 - New Balance = 183.22 (CR 90.00 / DR 75.30) <- Over limit charge applied 18/12 for going over on 17/12 but payment of £65 made 10days later in same month) (pg .8) Statement date 03/01/2016 - New Balance = 195.78 (CR 25.91 / DR 38.47) (pg 8/9) Statement date 02/02/2016 - New Balance = 202.70 (CR 25.78 / DR 38.48) (pg 9) Statement date 02/03/2016 - New Balance = 249.02 (CR 26.76 / DR 45.08 this total = £18.32) <--- Balance should be £202.70 + £18.32 = £221.02 ----- Difference 28.00 (pg 9/10) Statement date 02/04/2016 - New Balance = 233.66 (credits 100.0, Debits 84.64 total = £15.36) <--- should be £221.02 + £15.36 = 236.38
  3. Little positive update. I was scanning through websites looking for information as to when the Shopping Center/Local Authority published the change of ownership/pricing of the car park and came across a local area news site where others have voiced their concerns about the change. It turns out no publication in local free papers or any other areas had the details except this local news site, the council's page and the shopping centres - 2days before it went into operation. I did a little bit more digging and I found a local council site called Visit Lichfield but below this was also a site called "way back machine" that also had the URL of the visit Lichfield site. On viewing this site, it showed me when the site pages where changed. Interestingly the page displaying information about car parking was still showing it was free to Blue Badge holders up until 25th May nearly 90days after the change. I posted this info on the local news site as there was a local councillor who had been showing interest in the actions of the council's senior figures/shopping centre/excel.. same day she contacted me asking me for the ref number and copy of the blue badge, and she stated that she has had 40+ cancelled directly with the shopping centre since May when excel initially started sending letters. Well about 1hr ago, I received ban email from this councillor just saying "I've received confirmation from Excel Parking your mother's PCN is being cancelled. They will write to her direct to confirm." I'll await the confirmation but jobs a good un
  4. Received yesterday (31/07/21) Dan's for payment (attached) now requesting £160. Extra £60 now for Debt Collection costs to be paid by 11/08/21 They now reference "ParkingEye v Beavis". Still ignore or anything else required (my mother is getting quite upset and concerned about it + but keep telling her it's ok) Demand for payment (frt)- 28.07.21-merged_compressed.pdf
  5. Afternoon hope your enjoying the sunshine. Our postie is getting later and later, just had a final reminder put through the door. Reconfirms Notice to keeper was sent 11/06/2021 2mths after alleged contravention. Carry on ignoring or anything else I should be doing? Parking Charge Notice - Final Reminder 12.07.21.pdf
  6. Reply regarding the carpark: So in confused. LDC used to run the car park (free parking for blue badge) but then Three Spires Shopping took it on & employed Excel to run it. So is the landowner LDC or Three Spires. Plus it now shows there is no planning submitted by Excel
  7. 1st response from Local Authority Planning assistant Email has gone off to the above.
  8. Received a new reply from Head of Complaints. Despite sending through copies of my reports to show the differences, they still state that they are reporting correctly? They've also said that as the last email was their final response (despite me replying with additional evidence) and I do not have their permission to take it to the FoS. Do you have an updated file that was originally here for the Director/Executive team contact, as CS/Complaints?
  9. Will do Bazooka. Yeah small. Parents would never of seen that bit. Only just noticed myself it's £100 "per day".
  10. Just adding the Pic of the sign by the machine taken today. signage by machine.pdf @FTMDave I've looked on the local authority website for planning permission and can not find anything relating to Excel or the carpark
  11. That info came off a site Parking Cowboys on a page dedicated to Excel and the other company.
  12. Parents didn't take photos back in April - they have a crappy flip phone with no camera or access to internet. I went down today and their is signage that Blue Badge now have to pay. (I have a photo of that) Previously they didn't, as it was run by the local authority for 20+years
  13. So I understand and can advise my parents. As to what reason are they out of time. Is it due to the fact that they have failed to mention "schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012" and therefore forgo their rights to any such claim? Edited: found this - If PoFA isn’t used (either by choice of the parking company, or because they haven’t achieved the requirements), then the keeper could be held liable if the parking company can demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that they were the driver at the time. This could be achieved, for example, if the driver intentionally or unintentionally reveals they were, or if the parking company has photographic evidence. They would have a job as the keeper doesnt have a drivers license as it's a mobility vehicle
  14. Hi All, On behalf of my parents: 1 Date of the infringement: 12/04/2021 2 Date on the NTK: 11/06/2021 3 Date received: 17/06/2021 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? NO 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? YES – But time/date stamps not readable 6 Have you appealed? No Have you had a response? No 7 Who is the parking company? Excel Parking Services Ltd 8. Where exactly: Site/Name on PCN/NTK = Three Spires Shopping Centre Short Stay Car Parks, Lichfield, WS13 6JF Actual site name (wrote next to machine) = Short Stay Car Park, Backcester Lane Appeals body they operate under: IAS Mother is a Blue Badge holder (father is driver) with Mobility Vehicle in her name. Not a company secretary as indicated on the PCN/NTK. Car Park site was operated/ran by Lichfield Council for the past 20yrs+, up until the Shopping Centre has taken it back on as of 1st March - spoke to Shopping Centre Manager who confirmed that Excel did not change the signage until 23rd March. For the last 20yrs+, the parking has always been Free parking for disabled badge holders (also confirmed on Google Street View - dated Sep 2020). This was their first time out of the house since March 2020, mother is classed as vulnerable, she would of been able to go out in July 2020, but fell and broke her hip - hospital stays meant further Isolation periods upto announcement that everyone was back inside.. Parents did not pay the £1.00 and have received notice for £100. As you can see from date of incident to date of issue has been 60days. Excel state they have 60 days to obtain the information from DVLA as per the International Parking Community (IPC) There is also no notification on the Local Authority (Lichfield District Council) or any other site that states Blue Badge holders will have to pay following the transfer to Excel. Please note my parents are not tech savvy, do not use the internet or have smart phone (an old flip phone works for them) Additional note: I have today gone to the site to check the signage - whilst I was there 5 people had issues paying (not accepting money): One man rang the helpline was instructed to use the payment machine on the other level - which is closed off to the public, informed the representative who then stated to pay by to be informed to either pay by App or Online - he stated he did not have card, they hung up. A woman tried to pay online and via the App which refused the site code and name - same person stated it has been the same since they took over the site, when she's complained she has always been told to buy a Monthly Permit. PCN (NTK) - 17.06.2021_compressed.pdf
  15. Do you think inconsistency in reporting go in my favour? Equifax - No default registered, shows missed payments Aug - Oct 20 & two different settlement dates Nov & Dec 20. Aug 20 & prior paid on time marker for both Experian - Default registered Feb 2020 TransUnion - Default registered Feb 2020
  16. Response from Head of Complaints: Looking though some older emails: One of the cards I had requested a payment plan in October 2019, then 13th Nov 2019 I requested the same plan for the 2nd card but they said they needed an income & expenditure (despite me being the same person and the details were exactly the same as the other card) -- at this point neither cards were in Default. I continued to complain about the refusal of the plan due to the fact that they already had the information on 3rd Jan 2020 it was escalated to the complaints team and they replied on 15 Jan 2020 but still insisted on an I&E for the second card. At this time, due circumstances beyond my control, I requested that the payment plan be lowered to £5 pcm and this to be active on the 2nd card as well and provided a revised I&E. This resulted in the Plan will only be put into place if the account is default (letter issued 21 Jan 2020) - Default applied 22nd Feb. I am going to wait for the SAR, and read through everything as it will show the difficulty I faced with the company trying to put a payment plan into place. Then try contacting the Company Secretary (Rupert MacInnes) and then if that fails CEO (Lucy-Marie Hagues) I think I am now completely out of luck in regards to Charges and Fee's, unless "Lockdown March 2020" can assist with being unable to complain to FOS within 6mths as an exception?
  17. Hi All I have two Capital One Default entries on my report (which has now been a factor in being turned down for a job) - both accounts were low credit limit @ £200 each. From October 2019 I entered into a bit of an issue with finances & family matters and neglected payment on the accounts until a payment plan was set up in Jan 2020 . (no excuse I know) The main condition of the Payment Plans was that they would have to put my accounts as Default on acceptance of the payment plan as this was the only way one could be setup(?). (Default applied 22 Feb 2020) This is despite their own website stating "Money worries can be confusing, but don't worry, you have options. There are 3 steps you should take to avoid late fees and reduce any damage to your credit rating." & "Have your credit file show that you're doing your best to get back on track" ref: https://www.capitalone.co.uk/support/struggling-with-money.jsf Fast forward, I won a PPI battle with another company and money from that paid off both CapOne cards in Nov 2020. Prior to Oct 19 - I've managed the accounts accordingly. Card A - Started 2015 - credit report shows 2 missed payments (Jun 15 / Sep 18*), then Oct 19 to Jan 20 missed payment prior to Default. Card B - Started 2018 - No Missed payments until Oct 19 to Jan 20 *Sep 18: two separate payments were mistakenly made on Card B. There were other missed payments which were never negatively recorded due to 1-2 days due to payment processing. However I did still incur Late Payment Fees & Over limit fees on BOTH accounts in the same Months - basically equating to £48 of charges in a month. (2 x Late Payment / 2 x Over limit @ £12) but this was never negatively recorded on profile as I did make the payments. My questions are as follows: Charges: When a complaint is summitted how should Capital One treat a complaint? Is it a 1-2-1 relationship (CapOne & Customer) or is the complaint based upon the individual accounts. I am awaiting my SAR which will give me details of all charges since 2015 (start dates) Default: When entering a Payment Plan, should a Default be immediately applied to an account with no "Notice of Default" being issued ie the cooling off period? Is it appropriate for a company to register a default and not a payment plan marker on a credit report? I remember reading somewhere within the CONC guidelines about treating a customer fairly, and not misleading them - wouldn't the immediate default 'vs' their blurb on the website about reducing damage to credit rating be classed as misleading and treating a customer unfairly? (PS the company has said they will review my job application if I could get amended to a non-default marker)
  18. Update from FOS. They have sided with Tesco Bank. Their main reasoning for this is due to "floor limit's" Thee statement the FOS put is as follows: "Regardless of who the retailer is, it’s not unusual for stores to have the aforementioned ‘floor limit’ in place. And if the store doesn’t request authorisation from Tesco for the transaction to be approved then it doesn’t have the opportunity to decline it, and once the transaction goes through Tesco has an obligation to pay that amount even if it takes the consumer over the agreed limit. So based on the information that I currently have I can’t find that Tesco’s done anything wrong because it’s correctly applied the over limit charges as per the terms and condition of the credit card. And while these same terms and conditions state Tesco has the ability to stop transactions and prevent consumers going over their limit, again this is only possible if the retailer requests authorisation for the transaction. But there’s also no obligation on the business to stop these transactions, the terms and conditions say that it can or may stop them but don’t state that they will. It’s important to remember that ultimately it’s always the consumer’s responsibility to manage their account and make sure that they stay within the agreed credit limit. It’s not the business’ responsibility to manage the consumer’s account for them and stop them from going over the limit." If all merchants have floor limits then what's to say for example Currys having a floor limit of £500 and someone with a credit limit less that £500, does this mean the transaction goes through? It seems like this so called floor limit is an excuse for Tesco's to make money.
  19. Terms and conditions state if less that 70% of tickets have been sold the a cash prize of 70% of ticket sales will be awarded. This was in the original and current terms & conditions. If a raffle has a Skill based element (question is required to be answered) and there is. Free entry route the Gambling Comission do not require it to be licensed. However, there have been users posting that they did the postal entries and not one of them has been awarded an entry ticket - he says they didn't do it correctly and deletes the comment. Requirement for postal is Postcard with name address, email, mobile and competiton name and answer. (Not hard is it?)
  20. See attached The dates shown are competition start date and end date. I do not have screenshots from December as I didn't think anything was untoward. Entries purchased November for December (Christmas) Draws. After the draw date they were extended week by week but then exteded by 28days as we his new T & C's. Other people have also been impacted and posted asking when the tool sets, cars etc are going to be drawn only to have the comments deleted. He will reply sarcastically in the early hours and then delete his comments. (See also attached)
  21. I invested £100 into the raffle site (I am on others which operate as expected and have won a few prizes) I've not invested anything further but others are still being fobbed off by this person. The site is called Ryan's Raffles https://ryansraffles.co.uk/ The Facebook page of which im blocked for commenting/messaging & leaving a review is: https://www.facebook.com/ryansraffle If you take a look at the reviews you can see how he's asked if there's an issue but then no response. Also shows negative review with other person who is experiencing the same.
  22. The way the site is being run there are no intentions to hold the draws. Original T&C's permitted the operator of the site to extend the draws to the end of January. This date passed with each competition marked as Closed awaiting draw, only to have a new active timer for another 28 days - meaning they broke the original terms and conditions. Then 5th Feb, he updated the terms and conditions which now means he can extend to around May. Surely the original T&C's for competitions prior to 5th Feb change must be adhered to? Is there a governing body that monitors this, or can someone just create a site and have no intentions to hold draws & keep extending the draw date beyond the t&C's?
  23. That's correct. Keeps extending. Past it's original T&C's - blocked from commenting / contacting the site/Facebook page. Owner of the Raffle site has multiple businesses (car sales & repairs are two)
  24. Hi all Bit of advice please as I can not find anything on the internet relating to governance of online Raffle. The Gambling Comission do not require these such sites to be licensed if they offer a free entry route or a element of skill (such as answering a question correctly). Bank (starling) refusing to refund as MasterCard (who supply the debit card) state "When disputing transactions we have to follow specific rules set by MasterCard. Based on further investigation, we will unfortunately be unable to dispute these transactions at this time. This is because the service was provided by the merchant which entailed depositing of funds and facilitating wagering (buying raffles). As the merchant has provided this service, we have no chargeback rights to dispute this payment." my issue is with one site which looked at first legitimate but lots of things have happened since entering competitions: 1) Draw dates constantly extended. Original Draw dates December constantly changed again should of ended today but extended to march. 2) terms & conditions amended on 5th Feb which amended the Maximum extension period from 7 days + 4x7 days maximum extension to 28+ 4x28 days. 3) Messages, emails unanswered. Questions and comments about the draws deleted off Facebook & blocked from further commenting/messaging 4) positive reviews made by family members and employees of owners other companies 5) winners previously associated with the owners companies There is one negative review, bs people have commented on this stating the same issues but are blocked from writing a review but able to comment on the negative review (?) Any advice or is it a case of Action Fraud.
  • Create New...