Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BRIGADIER2JCS last won the day on October 31 2014

BRIGADIER2JCS had the most liked content!


3,029 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As said previously Fused a default at this late date is highly unlikely and would easily be challenged at the moment the entry (s) are a nuisance and I think you correct in writing requesting removal now.
  2. Hi Rick welcome, For an alleged debt of less than £20 highly unlikely to issue a CC claim. More likely to register a default on credit reference file instead. Write asking for unequivocal proof of any such debt, state you do not acknowledge any liability for the alleged amount owed.
  3. I agree Coniff he made a good point. What is " behind" the scenes may well be somewhat different from that we see on news media.
  4. I think a "test" the water letter I regard to financial redress is a reasonable approach if this fails to produce a positive response escalate to a " letter before action" but you Must be prepared to follow this through if necessary.
  5. Write to the Data Controller at the CRA (s) involved and state that you requires a notice of correction place on the files that the debt is statute barred. This record will certainly damage any application I suspect especially if the outstanding balance is large. As the creditor has not made any contact and you have neither paid or acknowledged the alleged debt you can most certainly write the creditors Data Controller informing them that the account is statute barred and you therefore do not acknowledge any liability and will not make any payment now or in the future. Also because of the creditors failure to default the account within the guidelines laid down by the ICO the CRA entry is now an unfair record.
  6. An investigation such as this will take time 10 -14 days is not a reasonable time scale in which to expect results if the matter is to be investigated properly.
  7. The elections in the UK are secret ballots as has been said, if confidential information has been passed to parties/candidates in an election at any level and you believe your specific information as your vote has been divulged a complaint should be made. I think the first port of call is the "returning officer".
  8. I most certainly agree with catchthemonkey this judgement changes much. No doubt we will see a raft of pointless discussion on this now!
  9. Hello Gia, I would suggest that you write to this nervous manager and insist that all that he said is put in writing, it has already been seen how provident conveniently forget, lose, and deny conversations and correspondence. (Don't ask Demand).
  10. Don't worry about any further defaults happening now or in the future it's not going to happen! Even if it did it is very easy to challenge.
  11. Exactly my point UB, the inclusion of the RBS data is a big mistake and certainly makes the recon non compliant. If I have enough time left here I will attempt to put something together to put Lowell away for good on this.
  12. That is exactly the point UB the inclusion of data relating to 3rd party (RBS) and possibly disclosing information, in my opinion totally disqualifies the recon. No offers don't give in to them while I still have time here I'll try to put something together.
  • Create New...