Jump to content

Fyffesy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

15 Good

1 Follower

  1. Thank for the quick reply. I was 90% sure they hadn't made a mistake with this but wanted to run it past you guys before contacting them. The only reason I ask is because Experian themselves have an example on their website of a "settled account" which shows a couple of late payments which have been remedied by a third transaction which clears the balance. This third payment is "green" because the balance is zero. I was just curious as to why my zero is orange/delinquent and the example's zero is green/satisfactory. Anyway, here's the link if anybody is interested: http://www.experian.co.uk/assets/consumer/credit-score/files/credit-expert-YCRE.pdf (it's about halfway down the page)
  2. Hi all. I'd really appreciate it if somebody could clear this up for me. I checked my Experian credit report a couple of months ago and realised an incorrect entry had been made by a "credit card" company (one of those pre-pay ones with a credit building facility) around 11 months earlier. I'm embarrassed to say I made a stupid miscalculation which meant I missed the final three payments without realising. I presumed I'd allocated the correct amount of money several months in advance but it seems I had a shortfall of three payments. As soon as I realised my mistake I made the payments and presumed the matter was resolved. I rang them and they confirmed that the payment had arrived but would be recorded as being "3 payments late". Obviously I couldn't dispute that because it was my own stupid fault. The account was closed (I think) in January 2012 but when I checked with Experian in November 2012, I discovered that Cashplus had recorded an inexplicable outstanding balance of £9.00 in January which meant it was regarded as "delinquent" by Experian (but not defaulted). It remained that way with no further activity until I checked in November. I wrote to APS Cashplus to point out their mistake and they have accepted that they'd made an error over the £9.00 and they've corrected it with the credit reference agencies. However, the account appearing on Experian has a status of "3 payments late" with a balance stating "settled". Of course I accept that the 3 late payments must be recorded but I'm not entirely sure they've done this correctly. In a nutshell, what I'm asking is if it's correct that I am being penalised by a "delinquent account" even though the balance has been paid (albeit slightly late) and is now £0.00 and the account is settled? I accept that it was three payments late but I find it difficult to believe that this should still be regarded as a delinquent account on my file for the next 5 years or so. The last two payments on this account have been recorded on Experian as "late" even though the balance was zero on both. I've copied the info below as it appears on Experian. The ones in orange were classed as late payments even though the last two were zero (is it possible to be late paying off a balance of zero?). Balance: £0 £0 £14 £14 £14 £14 £19 £24 £29 £34 £39 £44 Any thoughts and opinions would be very much appreciated
  3. Thank you Ida. Most helpful and much appreciated.
  4. Yes. Hundreds of people have. All complaints appear to be simply added to the pile. What I'm after is a breakdown of the law which applies to online agreements made in this way. It surely can't be correct that they can acquire a person's details from a separate company then activate a subscription when someone does no more than enter their email address and click on an "I Agree" button. Particularly when they refuse point blank to provide any relevant evidence whatsoever.
  5. Thanks for that. They don't actually owe me money but I am intent on making sure they can't get away with what they are doing. It appears that banks aren't refunding money when this company is invloved. By all accounts, they are doing things legally and it's therefore not a "[problem]". No box is ticked during the signing up process. The customer is confronted with a web page offering a "free £10 Adsa voucher" then simply asked to "re-enter" their email address (which they used whilst signing up with the original company) then click on the "I Accept" button. There is a link to the terms and conditions but they are not visible on the signing up screen in their entirety. Rewardsnow do not at any time ask you to enter your name, address, bank details but already have access to them from the signing up process from the first company. This suggests to me that they could potentially sign you up to their membership regardless of whether or not you actually clicked "I accept". Hence my annoyance at their repeated refusal to provide any evidence whatsoever. They also bizarrely claim that their right to take your money is further substantiated by their sending of a "welcome email" but they then go on to say it probably went to your spam/junk folder where it was auto deleted. In their opinion, it is the customer's fault for not checking his/her junk folder. Simply unbelievable. Does anybody know which laws are relevant to this type of thing?
  6. The company is RewardsNow. It's one of Adaptive Affinity's brands and they're really not popular. In short, they are tagged onto the end of the signing up process of another company (usually another of Adaptive Affinity's brands) and customers often don't realise they are signing up to rewardsnow and instead believe that clicking "I Accept" is part of the signing up process of the original company. The first you know about rewardsnow is when a monthly payment leaves your bank account and you have to google them to find out who they are. Of course tagging on of rewardsnow is all done within the parameters of the law (company name/terms and conditions subtly displayed) but my point is that they should not be in a position to tell disgruntled customers that they signed up whilst still refusing to provide any evidence whatsoever. They simply expect people to take their word for it. They've have made a serious amount of money out of this way of doing business over the years and I believe it's time they were made accountable for their methods. There must be some legislation somewhere which governs online signatures such as this? Surely?
  7. Hi. I'm hoping somebody could offer their advice on a surprisingly complicated issue that I've recently encountered. Does anybody know which legislation applies to online retail companies who charge monthly membership fees and activate accounts solely when the customer clicks on an "I accept" button on their website? The reason I ask is because I've encountered a particularly slippery company who activate accounts on the sly and refuse to provide any evidence whatsoever when challenged. Their standard response is to say "you must have clicked on the Accept button otherwise the account could not have been opened". According to an extensive thread on another forum, many people have encountered this company and every single one of them has been denied this proof and told to just take the word of the company as the gospel truth. They even challenge their "customers" to tell them what they would describe as evidence because they know it's extremely difficult to research the laws governing their way of doing business. I believe that the legislation which applies to this is either the Electronic Communications Act 2000 or the Electronic Signatures Regulations 2002 but I'm completely out of my depth when it comes to understanding if any of this does indeed apply to the way this company do business. Any assistance would be much appreciated.
  8. Does anybody know what the correct procedure an employer should follow regarding the provision of a P45 to an employee? In this particular case the employer sent the employer her P45 (part 1A) but it transpired yesterday that the employer didn't send the other parts of the P45 to the tax office. The staff at the tax office confirmed this. Does this mean the employer hasn't technically been dismissed and is therefore still employed by the employer?
  9. It seems that way to me too. Unfortunately I think this may come down to another "my word against her's" situation. I hope not because it all got quite childish last time.
  10. Ha ha. Hi mate. Yeah it's me again. And unfortunately it's the same employer again. I didn't want to complicate my last thread by mentioning this one but I thought I'd throw it open to you smashing folk. I'm not representing or anything (mainly because her mother is bigger and more scary than me) but I'd like to give her some handy info if I can source any here.
  11. Acording to the employer's response this chat (which should surely be deemed a grievance meeting) consisted my friend being told that her old job "really no longer existed as I had taken on the role of full time chef in order to keep the business afloat" They employer goes on to claim that she offered my friend a bar job consisting of the same hours and days as her job as a chef which would be 12 hours. My friend maintains that she was offered 6 hours of bar work but with a shallow promise that the employer might be able to give her a few extra hours here and there. The offer was declined by my friend at this meeting and this forms the basis of the employer's response. In short, the employer claims that because she offered a bar job consisting of the same hours, my friend's decision to decline is effectively handing in her notice which means she is not entitled to any redundancy pay. My friend was accompanied by her boyfriend at this meeting and both assure me that she was offered only 6 hours. Of course the employer has changed her story by the time of writing her response to the claim but I suppose that's to be expected.
  12. Hi, I'll try to keep this as brief as possible but I'd really appreciate some advice on this if anybody would be so kind. A friend of mine had a baby last year and had some trouble towards the end of her maternity leave. Basically she was employed as a chef in a pub but her employer informed her that this position was no longer available for her return to. The reason given was that the recession had meant that the employer felt she had no option but to step into the role of chef "in order to keep the business afloat". (shortly before going on holiday for two weeks and employing a 17 year old as a part time waitress). My friend heard nothing more and was advised by ACAS to write to the employer for further details. The employer responded by telephoning my friend and inviting her down for "a chat". During this "chat" the employer offered my friend a 6 hour shift as a barmaid (she previously worked 12 hours as a chef). My friend declined as she felt this was a demotion and the times of the bar job weren't helpful to her and her partner who needed to juggle time with their new son between working various shifts (paying for childcare really wasn't an option as both parents work part time on relatively low wages). Two days later a letter arrived from the employer stating that as she had declined the job offer, she had "effectively ended your contract with us". Despite the fact there was no contract in the first place. The employer also included my friend's P45 which was dated four days BEFORE this "chat" (the employer has effectively stated this in her response). My friend subsequently had her claim for unfair dismissal accepted by the Employment Tribunal and the employer has since done her research and is now desperately trying to wriggle out of this with bizarre claims of an entirely different version of events. Anyway, there's a lot more to this story but I won't go too deeply into it just yet. I have a basic understanding of employment law but I'd appreciate somebody else's opinions on this because the maternity aspect isn't something I know much about really. Thanks in advance for any replies.
  13. I've recently been through a tribunal and I was also not sure about the order saying the bundle has to be agreed. Personally I wrote to the ex employer and included a copy of the bundle with a cover note saying something along the lines of "please find enclosed my proposed bundle for the pending hearing. I would appreciate confirmation of your acceptance that all relevant documentation is included". In my case the ex employer ignored this letter but I felt it was important to at least be seen to be trying to get a bundle agreed between both parties because we were ordered to do so in advance by an Employment Tribunal Judge. Covering my own backside basically. If your ex employer refuses to cooperate then the reality is that at the Hearing both yours and your ex employer's bundles will be used. I think it's just wishful thinking that a bundle will be agreed by both parties in advance really.
  14. Thanks for the congratualting messages by the way. They all mean a lot to me.
  15. I must admit that this has been an obsession for me for the last 6 months. 50% was due to my absolute belief that my friend was innocent and 50% was due to the employer's horrible arrogance. The end result is that I know a lot more than I did when I started this. I spent months researching and I was pretty sure I had it all sussed. But in the end I (thankfully) decided to ask you guys what you thought. The end result was that I dealt with the hearing on a completely different angle than I intended to. I was well aware of this site because I personally had an unrelatred court case a while ago (which I won with the help of these forums) but I felt it was important to gain an understanding of how a case like this works before I threw it open to you splendid people. I haven't got the confidence of elpulpo and bigredbus when it comes to handing out advice but if anybody wants my opinion-I'm more than willing to help. Cross examination and preparation are my strengths I think. Obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing and I've spent the last two days thinking "I wish I'd said.........this that and the other".
×
×
  • Create New...