Jump to content

Goatan

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About Goatan

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Could be some good news around corner about these http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29816823 They may be forced to put disclaimers such as "We sell your application details on the best terms for us, rather than you." So here's hopping that will happen.
  2. It has been over 20 days since they sent that so i suppose that would be long enough to show they have no intention. With regards to previous adress thing i only have one other adress that i lived at for a few months with a friend but im back at the same adress i lived at before then and have been here for over 6 years. With regards to a complaint to OFT do i simply need to forward the e-mail them?
  3. well i will give them till the end off the month to make good on this threat then a nice complaint to the OFT is in order.
  4. Just had this from MMF with the same subject as the title of this thread. Mr Goatan,your file has been approved for legal proceedings at your last known address. MMF rely on this SMS re legal costs. 01138876876 Ref: blah blah Fully intend to ignore but i though others should be aware also this game to my e-mail adress not sms and was placed imediatly into the junk folder. BTW would this count as threataning legal action if they never follow through?
  5. A while ago i defaulted on an MBNA credit card. Later on noticed that all pof the debit woudl have been due to PPI which i successfully claimed back. However the default is on my credit file is still on my credit files and the Credit agencies wont remove it without MBNA say so. I believe i need to simply contact the department responsible for ICO compliance but i don't know which department that is.
  6. I have had similer problem with JBW and massivley overinflated fees and charging two different fees on one day. Seems to be a thing for them. They also made it very difficult to find who the actual bailiff was as letters where unisnged or a barely legible squiggle. They also clamped a car that didn't belong to me, JBW seem to be makeing a habit of this. Do you by any chance live along the m4 corridor. I ask as im just wondering if it is the same bailiff that dealt wiht me as its the same MO and i have been considering putting a form 4 complaint about them.
  7. Thanks for the advice TT. I do not belive this man is actually a bailiff also there is no form 7 i wont be able to contact TEC until Tomorrow afternoon anoyingly. If you could point me to a guide about how to fill in an N244 I can get that done also how do i seek a review or is the N244 the process of seeking a review..
  8. After having a run in with JBW a while back and i submitted an out of time application I thought all was fine until now someone for JBW has just put a clamp on the car I use, but don't own JBW have been told that I don't own this car so it is quite clear that they are doing this to harass. Aparently my appeal was turned down but this is the first i have heard of it. Were do we go from here as the car cant be towed as it is not mine. This has been done by a Mr steptow/e who is not a registered Bailiff at least not for JBW.
  9. I couldn't find my old thread so have started a new one but to be honest there wasn't much on it. Just received a lovely letter from MBNA denying everything that I have put into my letter (no surprise there) but they have upheld my complaint and are sending me a cheque. A quick blow by blow account I did the normal thing and sent a sar then i made a claim based on that SAR based on the fact i had been mis-sold due to being unemployed. They sent a letter back denying that i had been mis-sold due to it being an unadvised sale and that they given me all the required information on a separate screen. I then sent an e-mail to the CEO of the European card division informing him that this was my final letter before i sent them a letter before action and made a complaint to FOS and FSA. My points in the letter where that he PPI was mis-sold as the PPI box was pre ticked That there was no information that the purchase of PPI involved buying insurance. Nor at any time was there information that the policy could be cancelled That in the letter sent by their staff claimed that this information was on a separate screen i pointed out that this was irresponsible as such popups are often blocked as they are a popular method for getting viruses onto machines. The information should have been next to tick box otherwise a responsible computer user may block this necessary information. I also pointed out that they did not supply the T&C's of the PPI when i did a SAR and as such they have either broke ICO guidelines or the conditions did not exist and as such MBNA did not provide the written documents as required by the FSA. The letter they sent back denies everything but upholds my complaint. I hope this provides a glimer of hope for others who have a virgin/MBNA card who applied online and were mis-sold PPI. Now one the cheque has arrived time to reclaim unfair charges i think they will fight harder on that one. A big thank you to CAG this site and its community is a goldmine of information.
  10. many moons ago I had a problem with NatWest and a payday loan they had paid despite me cancelling the debit card. after an initial complaint they reversed the payment but a few weeks later they re did the payment or should I say payments as they were taken in 7 chunks of £100. Anyway I went through their complaints procedure with no joy then the FOS who just rubber stamped their decision and thought that was that as i could not pay anything back at the time the account had massive charges and went into default. Just a few days ago i saw this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19598492 -which should probably grace the CAG front page as i bet it would be useful to a few cagers- which explicitly states that the banks cannot just make a payment to a payday loan company or anyone else against my will and how the banks are unsurprisingly still ignoring the law on this. Anyway as I now realise that the bank was wrong and the FOS was wrong i was wondering how i go about taking them to court. Would it be simply a case of taking them to small claims to get the money and charges refunded so that the default would be taken off?
  11. I have just had a response from MBNA regarding my PPI unsupriingly they rejected as this seems a standard response from them. They claim first that i ticked the the box for PPI where as im sure it was already ticked secondly they claim there was information on a second screen which i have a problem with. I have drafted a response to them, at the moment it is very rough and needs some grammer correcting etc. but i thought i would put it up for comment as it would be relevant for most people rejected by MBNA as the information provided on a seperate screen seems a common way for them to fob customers off. I am writing about a mistake made by one of your members of staff relating to mis-sold PPI and i am writing this letter to give you an opportunity to correct this mistake before i complain to the FoS and FSA I believe that the PPI box was automatically ticked on the application screen there was no information regarding the PPI such as costs etc. There was no information that the payment protection involved the purchase of insurance indeed it was called payment protection cover. Nor at any time was there information that the policy could be cancelled. The letter sent by your staff member claims that information appeared on a separate screen i do not believe that a responsible financial institute to behave as in the first case it would not necessarily be clear that this separate screen provided any information about payment protection insurance and indeed in a lot of cases it would open behind the main screen or in a separate tab thus it would not be noticed at all A responsible financial institute would place the necessary information next to the tick box to ensure that it would be seen at the time. In the second case as an IT professional I always ensure that my browser does not allow second pop up screens as this is a method used by certain websites to place viruses on machines and deliver unwanted advertising this is common practice among IT professionals and users alike which is another reason that placing any important information on a separate screen is irresponsible as it means a responsible computer user would unwittingly block this necessary information. If this information did exist as your member of staff asserts you would have provided it along with the rest of the information you provided regarding the application. As it was not supplied I believe that no such separate screen existed. I also believe that failing to provide all terms and conditions for the credit card and the PPI on the same screen as the electronic signature would breach FSA guidelines. Nothing in the documents sent by your member of staff lead me to believe that the PPI was sold fairly As such MBNA did not provide the written documents required under the FSA’s rules (such as, for example, a policy summary, statement of price, or statement of demands and needs). A list of the relevant documents is set out in the FSA Handbook, as are the timescales for providing the documents and, where relevant, the need to stress to the customer the importance of reading the material.
  12. hallowitch that is pretty much what i thought the "breakdown" is an attempt to justify there disproportinate charges and hope i will go away, big mistake this has got me more angry than ever.
  13. The debt was for a congestion charge. I looking to complain to OFT trading standards as well as a formal complaint to tfl as the "bailiff" they used is uncertified and no actual attempt was made to levy (witnessed by my family and a neighbour over the road.).
  14. Im currently in the porcess of writting up a copmlaint about JBW but i didn't want to send it off until i recived a breakdown of fees. they have now sent it anjd i have attached it. I was hopping for some advice as the breakdown looks highly suspiciou such as charging for a letter that was never sent and for attendance to levy when no attempt to levy was made and an attendance to levy and remvoe on the same day when they clearley had no intention of removing the vehicle they clamped as they had not tow vehicle. Please let me know what you think about it so i can invlude it in my complaint.
×
×
  • Create New...