Jump to content

Shanks

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shanks

  1. Out of interest what do you think a SAR would bring if I asked for all the notes made on my account. I asume they are bound by the same regulations that cover these, are they? Cheers
  2. You really must try and get a proper inventory completed. Without one, come the end of the tenancy it will become your word against his on everything. Some landlords are fine but if the agreement has started this way it doesn't bode well for your deposits. I would start by asking what the landlords plans are in this regard. It does offer protection to both parties. Ideally you need to photograph everything, especially if there is any existing damage, this includes areas of wear in carpets and stains/marks on floorings etc. Itemise everything that was left in the property when you took over including how many cups, plates etc with pictures of any that are cracked or chipped. Include any outside areas, so you can refer back to how well/unkempt the gardens areas are if you have them. hth, post back if you wouold like any further information. Cheers
  3. You said that she told you I assume that means that this was an overseas transaction, if so I am not sure what the courts in this country will be able to do for you. Was this done through a third party web/auction site or was it just an independant dress maker who happens to sell via the internet? If it was the former I would try contacting them and see if they can mediate on your behalf. If it was the latter then it's beyond me but hopefully someone will be along soon to suggest something. Good luck
  4. GFC stand s for 'Group of Finance Companies' or so I have been told by numerous people who regularly call me from there. They are touting for loans/mortgages etc. The usual pattern is that they will ask for all your personal and financial details before stating that a consultant will call you to give you the 'favourable interest rates' they can offer you. My advice is to either play with them and waste their time for a while or hang up, it is unlikely they will be able to offer a better deal than you can get in this country by asking around. CHeers
  5. Hi Enron, It did cross my mind that if were were able to confirm that these were unlawful penalties, then we shoud be able to reclaim them in much the same way as with the banks. If so, then his explicit admission that these penalties have always been charged and that they are only now itemising them would surely mean that we could reclaim this figure at least for the last 6 years. The phrase about disguising penalties etc comes to mind. Cheers
  6. Here it is...at least if this link works http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/1525-recording-telephone-conversations.html?highlight=recording+call#post9855 Cheers
  7. Thanks for the heads up on that one it looks interesting. I seem to remember that admin on this site have previously said that you do not have to warn someone that you are recording a current call. I'll try and find a link Cheers
  8. Well that was entertaining I have just spent an hour on the phone to BT. I started by asking what the current line rental fee were. The answer given was that pre may 2007 it was £12 for BT Option 1. This was reduced to £10.50 for everyone but the processing fee was introduced for those not paying by etc etc. The first operator insisted that these fees were not a penalty and was then only able to read from a script that said it was fair and in line with other providers and covers the cost of processing the payments. She added that for some strange reason it also covers the delay they have when getting paid thought the post office, which apparently takes 15 days. I suggested that they should take that up with the post office and that we shouldn't be charged, especially if we do not use that as a method of payment. When pushed for an answer to "if it isn't a penalty then what is it? She went silent and refused to say anything apart from "I have answerd your question and it is not a penalty". I got tired of that and asked for someone senior. The same script was then read out by the 'manager'. I pressed her on points like why should we be charged to cover the costs of a subsiduary company that is not providing us with any direct service? Also if they are only charging part of their customer base and this is an additional charge then it is clearly a penalty. The same script was then referred to and no more answers were able to be given. Interestingly she said "this fee is being charged to all our customers" I queried that point and said "no it is only being put to a group of your customers ie the ones not paying by DD". She insisted that she was right, repeated her statement and then said she couldn't help me any more. Ok then, so I asked for someone else with more authority who may be able to answer my questions. This time I got the Line Manager, and the call took a very humourous twist. I started by asking him he said A bit taken aback I repeated the question and he repeated the answer. I asked if the call was being recorded was told "yes probably" so again I asked him and he said yes, oh um oh no we do not lie - we help our customers. So we went round the same Q & A, this time I added that if we are being charged for the cost of processing our payments why are DD cutomers not having the same policy imposed on them, may be a lower fee could be charged but surely they should pay to cover that cost and then it would be fair. He had no answer to this one He did add that this fee has always been charged, it is just new policy for BT to itemise the charge on our bills and is part of their new way of working with their customers and "helping us to understand the way our bills are made up". I couldn't make this up if I tried. The final outcome was that even though they are a telephone communications company if I wanted to take the matter any further I would need to do so in writing :o They refused to put me through to anyone else. I turned that round and made a formal complaint then and there to the line manager, dictated the compaint to him and he has promised a written response in 7-8 working days. Let's see
  9. The payment processing fee is being charged by BT Payments Services Ltd, not just the late payment fee. I am sorry I got the exact wording incorrect on my last post - now corrected. But the point remains that BT are enforcing a charge on one section of their customer base in order to cover the costs incurred by another company which provides a service to their whole customer base. As for simply charging £1.50 and keeping the other rates unchanged, surely they should be keeping the rates unchanged and then offer a discount to those who pay by DD.
  10. I am not an expert but I am sure someone will be along shortly with some advise, however I have to wonder what they were doing for 8 hours as that does seem excessive. In order to arrive at a figure they must have a list of the jobs undertaken and how long each job took. Perhaps you could start by writing and asking them to provide you with a breakdown of the work completed and the length of time taken. Cheers
  11. I think they are basing that on £2.56 excluding VAT. Rough figures bring it in line with their general pricing struture. As for the offsetting of costs of one service by chargng extra on another, it makse no sense and I cannot see it standing as defensible. It is also interesting to note "there is a fee from BT Payments Ltd, a BT Group Company for processing your payments". Can one company/division apply a penalty to it's customers to cover a cost which itself doesn't have to bear. And why are we getting charged by BT Payments Ltd, if we have paid on time, albeit by cheque or other method? What are your thoughts?
  12. I wholeheartedly agree with all you've said here, my bank waved the white flag and paid when they got the letter from MCOL, so I havn't had to face the courts yet but I would certainly give it a go with BT on this case. I wait with interest to see their next move. Cheers
  13. postggj, you already have a post running http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/114371-welcome-finance.html if you need another one then just start it the same way you did that one. Cheers
  14. postggj, you need to start a new thread of your own. Starting a new topic in the middle of someone else post will mean yours does not not get the attention you might need. A mod may see this and move it but best just start a new one hth scotsguy69, one of the problems with DCA's, if this is one, is that they use so many subsiduary names and aliases it becomes difficult to keep a track on all the names used. Quite often in reality it is just the clerk sat at the other side of the same room. But another company's name and headed paper means they can up the anti and claim to have passed the debt on etc etc. I would agree with the comments so far that this is very unusual for a licenced DCA to use this level of threatening language, if proved to be one you can be assured the folks on this forum will certainly help to put an end to it. Is there a way to record any calls being made to your daughters number. It may help with identifying the company involved and would provide evidence of their intimidating actions. The advise to not talk to them on the phone still applies, but if they launch into some threatening tirade at least there will be a record of it before you hang up. Cheers
  15. Very interesting and I'm pleased to see this one being taken head on in this fashion, thanks for the heads up My understanding is that a company is quite entitled to offer a discount to customers who pay via a particular method but they cannot charge a fee to those who choose an alternative method. I appreciate that the net effect may be the same. But one way offers and discount incentive, which is acceptable whilst the other actively enforces a penalty which I feel pretty confident we already know is not. Is this right or have I missed the point? As for covering the costs of bad debtors, surely that cost should be factored across the whole customer base not simply added to a proportion based on their chosen method of payment. Are they really saying that no DD paying customer has ever left them short after bouncing a payment or two. Good luck with this one Enron, cheers
  16. Hi Jeane, This is something that is normally agreed at the start of the tenancy and is usually part of the contract. I used to do these type of inspections and the time between visits varied considerably. Some long term tenants I only saw every six months or even on an annual basis. Some of our student tenant's properties recieved a full inspection every month! Believe me a house with 6 lively students can be (and was in some cases) almost demolished internally in that time! If it wasn't agreed at the start then get in touch and ask the landlord what his process is. You may find they view more often to start with on a new tenant, then as they get to know you the visits will drop off. Cheers
  17. As far as I am aware, most cc companies couldn't give two hoots who the original debt is from as long as you are putting more funds in their company's card it is them who win. In the past I have just called them and given them the details over the phone and the balance has transferred. Check the back of your last statement or go on-line to their site, the number is bound to be there. I would echo gizmo111's words of caution though, and also if you are looking to do this then at least get a card that is offereing a good rate for transfers. You might be able to reduce or even zero the interest rate for a while. hth cheers
  18. ok, my bad ODC. Sorry. But it does illustrate how futile the position is that Moorcrap are now in. They cannot enforce the debt legally and they just aren't capable of asking nicely. Kind of backs them into a no win corner doesn't it? Shame
  19. Oh absolutely, just because one door isn't wide open doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other ways to deal with these people. Cheers
  20. Hi, I thought the 'vexatious litigant' bit sounded great so I've done some digging about and it looks like a non-starter for us, I think. Taken from "THE TREASURY SOLICITOR AND VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS" it would seem that this status can only be levied once they have actually commenced court action and it is unfounded... So it would seem they can threaten court action to their hearts content so long as they don't ever take it that far. Unfortunately for them they know that taking a well informed cagger to court is not a route they are likely to actually take. I would welcome anyone more qualified than me to correct this or provide more recent reference that might mean we could use this. tbh it would be very saitisfying to threaten this in a letter to one of these DCAs Cheers
  21. They most certainly are not. ODC's letter makes it clear where you stand on this. The debt is legally unenforceable, whether you pay it back or not is entirely your decision to make, and short of a poilte request there is nothing they can do. I guess you would now be in a strong position if they continue to write to threaten court action against them for harrassment. At this stage I would just wait for the response to ODC's letter. Cheers
  22. Nice one ODC - I think that just about covers it. Cheers
  23. So "there is hope" and there is certainly the will here to see this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. I have sent off the letter to JB stating that this is disputed and as such they cannot take further action (thanks ScarletPimpernel). I'm happy to leave it, the ball is certainly in their court. If nothing cames back after Tuesday next week then RLP are next in my sights. cerberusalert - is this similar to the defence put towards the banks when they kept pulling out just before the court date was due? Seems to me that was a successful arguement for us then Cheers all, I will keep this post updated.
  24. ScarletPimpernel, that's excellent thank you. My last letter was to Deb's as my view was that any action taken by third parties must have been initated, at least in the first instance, after instruction by them. I take your point about their distance from the current proceedings but will wait to see what reaction we get from my letter before taking it further. In the meantime I will write to JB and quote your bit about disputed debt etc. Thanks again for all the help.
  25. Hi ScarletPimpernel, I couldn't agree more. This is what makes me even more determined. Should we not get a satisfactory result direct from Debenhams my next suggestion to family will be that we call their bluff and instigate court action against them. I will need some help on the technicalities but I am confident in the principle, what do you think? Cheers
×
×
  • Create New...