Jump to content

FlyboyAgain

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

104 Excellent

About FlyboyAgain

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I guess so. It just shows you the level of abuse that's levied against consumers' data. I yearn for the day 1st Crud loses its licence! But it's their stupidity that amazes me: getting a thicko threat merchant sol from Glasgow to issue a default notice ona certain date yet defaulting me on the same account over a year earlier! That is, in effect, two defaults they've marked on that account, though only one of theirs appears on the file. It doesn't help that the ******* from Yuill & Kyle in Glasgow doesn't know his arse from his elbow.
  2. Yes, sorry that's who I meant by IO. Case opened last September and only now are they contacting 1st Crud.
  3. Trading Standards STILL waiting on replies to further questions asked of the monkey Sol and his 'default' letter. Snails move faster than this process. Will post back as things progress. If they ever do!
  4. Whom, the SLCC and the IO? I get the impression no-one really cares!
  5. And...cant get to Law Society as my case has to go through the SLCC first and since the found my case without merit, that's that avenue dried up. Now waitin on Information Commisioner to try sort this one out.
  6. Defamation? On what grounds? Surely you should be going through the Information Commissioner's office if these clowns are altering details? Why would you risk a court case on a charge of defamation of character?
  7. Update: SLCC complaint finds both my complaints (with regard to the incorrectly set-out stat demand) 'without merit', after over three months of deliberation. No matter, Trading Standards is on his case, big-time, and next stop is the Law Society. And the Police have lost the letter on suspected fraud I sent them.
  8. Equifax tell me to contact 1st Crud, whose data controller was copied in on the request to rectify the default date and no response to date, so complaint off to ICO today.
  9. HBoS are a shifty lot and I had an awful time with them a few years ago with them denying they had seen correspondence even though I was looking at signatures saying the letters had been signed for. That company is peppered with inveterate liars, but that's another story. So, how did you approach this? The way I did it was to go through all my statements and highlight the excessive £35 charges HBoS was slapping on my account. If you don't have them, you can request them from your bank. They will shilly-shally, delay, prevaricate and supply you with statements missing data but you must persevere with this! In my case, they then stated that they found their charges fair and acceptable and that I had agreed to be penalised by them by virtue of having been served the account T&Cs when opening it. They kept on stalling and then I hit them with the charges plus interest letter. You may be aware that you are allowed to add interest (you will have to research this) and whilst many people did so I eventually did not, even though I was doing myself out of several hundred pounds. When they were hit with that charges plus interest letter and a wee visit from the FO, they caved in like a house of cards. Watch out, though: don't put the charges cheque(s) into any account you still hold with them as they will sweep that for debts you may hold with them elsewhere. Now go get them!
  10. Thank you, but it's all in the past, now, and I sorted out HBoS good and proper own my own, from advice imparted and info learned on this site. Anyway, all the call logs were on an old PC and even though I have copies of all correspondence, I don't see what can be achieved several years down the track. Thx, anway.
  11. This is an interesting one. Any update, TheDarkNight?
  12. Just checked the CF again to find the incorrect default date still there, despite raising an online query with Equifax. Tried to get access to the 'My Questions' folder online only for the page to tell me that my details are incorrect (they're not) or that the account has been disabled. Nice! So, have had to write to them and also 1st Crud to get that default date removed or altered back to its original one. Trading Standards reckon this solicitor has a case to answer and I'm having a meeting with them next week.
  13. Glad you got something out of them. Now, if only I had been so diligent with BoS/HBoS all those years ago. Well done.
  14. Do not speak to them! Once they get a handle on you, they won't let go! Write to them and ask what the debt in question is and ask them to refrain from calling you at home. Tell them if they continue to do so, you will report them to Trading Standards and to the police, citing harrasment.
  15. Ok, just having a look at the file. The account is question has a default mark against it placed by 1st Crud. The default date is clearly marked on the file as xx/07/2008; this date is out by some three years and also by day and month dates. Why would 1st Crud do this? I have raised a dispute on this with Equifax. Unfortunately, there is no mark that I can see from the monkey sol in Glasgow. In fact, there is nothing pertinent to the default he issued in May this year! Has he acted fraudulently?
×
×
  • Create New...