Jump to content

Ignition

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Ignition

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This topic was closed on 03/06/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. Doesn't it? For the curious the company in question is Lending Stream. I have thanked them for their response, informed them it's really not on, and asked them to confirm that's their full and final response so that I can raise it with the ICO and begin court action without further delay
  3. Incidentally despite being presented with evidence that the defaults are incorrect the CRA in question is simply shrugging its shoulders and continuing to keep the data on file. Its response is to ask the creditor again if the data is correct, which they'll probably confirm as they have already once, and completely ignore that they claim to misreport to the CRA as a matter of procedure.
  4. The MMF data actually matches the NoD, which is more than could be said for the original creditor. MMF have agreed that their default was placed in error and have removed it.
  5. All, This may help some folks if this is actually the company in question's process but I wanted to check first if it was above board or not. The scenario is 2 defaults from the same creditor, which were taken over by a 3rd party, however the earlier defaults were left on file and new ones added. 2 defaults for the same account. This has been sorted but it showed some quite interesting discrepancies. The accounts had the same start start date but different default dates and amounts. I put this to the original creditor and received the following response, with account nu
  6. MKDP LLP have informed they are withdrawing their claim.
  7. After a bit of thinking I thought MotorMile might like a nice chat with the FCA along with my local MP and copied the correspondence to Stella Creasy as I know what a fan she is of such things. Will keep you informed.
  8. Actually this is part of their mess up here and part of why I wanted to share this. There is no 'may' there - they are saying that their agent will call and will continue to call until the door is answered, and invite the recipient to avoid potential embarrassment. I thought this was noteworthy as, for all their poor conduct in the past, they seem to have crossed a new line.
  9. I've just seen an email from Motormile Finance which I suspect goes beyond being dubious as far as regulator guidelines on debt collection go and into downright illegality. Our home visit team has been scheduled to visit you in person to deal with the outstanding balance of £673.00 that is due to MMF. Our team of Recovery Agents will regularly be attending this postcode with a view to visiting you. Visits can be scheduled between 8am and 8pm Monday to Saturday. We would invite you to contact us to arrange a mutually convenient appointment, to avoid causing you any potential embarrass
  10. No Sir. There is no CCJ yet, they have put forward their claim and I have responded with the rather poor defence above. They appear to want to accept an offer of payment out of court while continuing to pursue court action, in addition they appear to have not noticed that I submitted a defence. I am not up to speed with legalese. Are they permitted to do this or is this, as it seems, an error which I have comeback on. I am rather keen on avoiding this sitting on my credit record for a further 6 years.
  11. Hi All, So our friends from Keynes sent me the usual letter before action and, despite my sending a response within the time limit, I received the paperwork from Northampton. I have completely messed up the defence - frankly I panicked. I sent a letter after receiving the claim marked without prejudice continuing to deny the debt but, due to ill health, offering them a settlement of a monthly payment for a period followed by a single one-off payment to settle the debt, because I want this to stop hanging over me. Their response has been to accept the monthly payment
  12. Right let's get this out of the way. It's not the notice of assignment that was sent to me way back when. This was something the DCA made up on the hoof. They are lying when the claim it came from HSBC and they are lying when they claim it's a copy of the NOA issued. Thanks for the 'help'.
  13. Letter already composed to that effect, stating that as I'm sure they actually do have the documentation they claim to it all shouldn't be a problem. I struggle to believe a DCA can blatantly write letters claiming to be from someone else and this be legitimate.
  14. Well yes there is; they specifically state the copy NoA provided was issued by the original creditor when the account was assigned to them. Are they allowed to claim something came from the original creditor and write it themselves too?
  15. Well that's me thoroughly confused as to what the point of the NOA is. I stupidly thought it was a letter from the original creditor indicating assignment of the debt. Evidently the DCA can just write one themselves and pass it off as coming from the original creditor. In most circles that's fraud.
×
×
  • Create New...