Jump to content

dinklyink

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About dinklyink

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi I''d like to kindly request some advice on what to do about this. Very brief background is this: 3 years ago I failed to repay an overdraft. The bank added charges and eventually stopped adding any more charges. Since then a whole pile of 'D's have appeared for every month since on my credit file. Just yesterday I notice that bank had linked me to several addresses I never even lived at. Complete lies basically. It is not right that companies can get away with storing inaccurate information about me. Who should I write/complain to and what laws do I quote? Perhaps there is a
  2. thanks very much for this. Could you just tell me if what I think is right: I think that there should be some signed agreement, or kind of contract. Should I be asking them to produce this, to prove I entered in to this contract with them? Thanks
  3. based on this what would you suggest should be my next move? Thanks
  4. Hi Scott I'm trying to give the minimum information necessary as I know that the companies trawl forums such as these. I am hesitant to state the name of the bank as I am unsure of it's relevance...? The debt was in the hands of debt collectors, I sent them the 'prove it' letter, and the DCA now referred it back to the bank, from which I received a statement. I thought I was to be expecting some kind of credit agreement, something with a signature on... proving the debt? Many thanks
  5. Absolutely matey, couldn't agree more. I'd certainly defend any claim, and contributory negligence may be one defense that would need closer consideration. I wish all the best to the OP, last thing I'd want is my brain-dead postman making a ridiculous claim like this against me. However ridiculous it might be claims like these often succeed in court
  6. As I understand it, contributory negligence is a defense to a claim of negligence. I am not so familiar with case law in this respect. I do hold the opinion that if the postperson was crossing the garden and his leg fell through a manhole that was improperly maintained he would have good grounds for a claim, regardless of whether or not he used the footpath.
  7. For a claim of negligence to be successful 3 criteria must be fulfilled: 1. Relationship of proximity between the parties. 2. Reasonably foreseeable 3. Fair, just, and reasonable. I don't believe, though I could very well be wrong, that claims because someone slips and injures themselves are rare/unsuccessful. However, if the slip was caused because of a hazard then there would be grounds for a claim. If you walk down the pavement, trip and fall, hurt yourself, you would probably be unsuccessful in bringing a claim against the council for negligence. UNLESS the fall was the res
  8. This is because the courts go to great length to impose liability on the party most able to pay damages. This is usually the landowner. It is not a direct reflection of what you may consider morally right or wrong. Previous case law shows that in almost all circumstances the courts will find the property owner has a duty of care to anyone who may enter their property. This includes burglars, because almost anyone has implied permission to be on your property. It is only through robust signage that you can go some way to limiting your liability - namely by explicitly revoking any implied permis
  9. paulandgayle07 In your case the issue was bigger because of the possibility of a criminal investigation: bodily harm was caused, and also damage to property. People are in fact allowed to open a gate and wander in to your property, and they are not trespassing unless you have explicitly said they have no permission. However, as in your case, damage to your property was caused, and to a neighbour's car. Though people might have permission to be there they certainly don't have any more right to cause damage. In the OP's case, it seems like the postman was going about his busines
  10. Don't say the postman was trespassing. He has implied permission to be on your property. As such you have the obligation to ensure your property is reasonably safe. Dangers should either be fixed, or marked as such. If marked as such you should then provide an alternative way around the danger. The postman is only trespassing if you have put sign(s) up that clearly state you revoke any and all implied permission of entry to your property. Otherwise anyone is actually allowed to enter your property and walk around the garden if they so wish. The fact the postman did not use the foot p
  11. Thanks, Scott. Does this mean that I am basically accepting this debt is mine? It's only in the last few months they have tracked me down.
  12. Just giving this a nudge, I'd really appreciate being pointed in the right direction on this one. Thanks.
  13. Scot thank you for the speedy reply. I think the account is still open - though they've been chasing me to repay the overdraft for about 3 years now. Every month my credit file also gets another black mark. So I guess it is open. It was a student account. From what I could tell when I was no longer able to pay it they added some charges and interest on to it - about £200 worth. They seem to have frozen it and the amount just stays the same nowadays. Thanks for any advice/insight you may offer
  14. I sent a "prove it" letter to the bank that is chasing me for an overdraft. It took months but finally got a reply. It consisted of Stating the amount I owe. To me this seems very lame and doesn't prove a thing. But... What should I do now? Many thanks
  15. A certain bank has applied in excess of 10 defaults to my credit file with a single CRA. This is for a single overdraft. Can they continue applying defaults indefinately each month? Many thanks
×
×
  • Create New...