thanks for the update mc. Our thoughts are with you.

ty ds.

Mc

Just an update on things, as regards the CRA info.

I have been playing letter ping pong with the DCA (1St Crud) for some time and making official complaints about everything that I have identified. Toward the end of last year I put in an official complaint to Equifax in relation to the incorrect and outdated information (via its online query) and I had a response from 1st Crud via Equifax saying that although there was no proof that the 'Settled' marker (re Experian Nov' 06 report) was not the same account, the information should not be shown due to it being over 6 years since the original default!

The upshot is that, on the 25/1/2011, the information was removed from Equifax!

Great news I know, but why so easy? As far as I can see from other peopels experience, trying to get information removed from your credit file is similar to attempting dentistry on a fully lucid and unrestrained crocodile!

This makes me think, together with the denial that it is the same account, me thinks that some cages have been rattled! As a side not, proving that they are the same account would be easier than proving otherwise.

Anyway, it would seem that a minor battle has been won. Now to consider if I should take further action.

Hi All,

Thanks again for all of the great info, it is a relief to know that the funeral expenses are the priority, because both his mother and I are far from wealthy people and this is an expense that we had just not budgeted for.

His mum would like to keep the TV, really because it was something that he was so pleased to get. But I guess if the insurance doesn't cover death, then it will have to go back.

Anyway, thank you everyone for your kind words and support, you are all fantastic and a big part of my support network. Thank you.

MC

Thanks to all for your thoughts and great advice. Sorry I have taken a while getting back, just juggling a billion things at the moment and time is short.

I really appreciate all of your help, thank you.

MC

Thank you both, CD & Rev'. That gives me somewhere to start. much obliged.

MC.

Hi All,

Didn't really know where to stick this one, so just put it in here. If there is a more suitable sub-forum, could a kind mod move it for me.

Unfortunately, on the 23rd Dec' my son, aged 20, unexpectedly passed away. Of course, this was and still is a huge shock to us all.

There is obviously alot to sort out and I need some advice as regards some credit that he had.

Being so young he did not have any insurances etc. for this eventuality, and his estate amounts to a small amount of savings of around £900. He had a credit card with a small balance of about £140, a loan through Barclays for a home learning course, which he has paid of at least half of the original £1800. We don't think he had any overdrafts, but I know he said he had around 4 bank accounts recently.

Due to the time of year and a delay with the coroner, we don't have a death certificate yet and it is possible that there may even be an inquest, which will delay things further. We went to see his bank, but of course they were not prepared to freeze anything until they had the certificate, although the chap did say that where there are insufficient funds in an estate then it is likely that the debts will be written off (he wasn't behind with any payments).

The other thing is that a few weeks before this happened, he had purchased a 3D TV for his room (about £1500.) on 9 months interest free credit from Comet, he also took their all singing and dancing insurance with it, but I don't know if there would be any death benefit with that.

I suppose what I would like to know is:

What is likely to happen as regards the TV? (I think his mum would like to keep it)

Will what small estate he has, be eaten up by his creditors or as it is not sufficient to pay all of it, will the debts be written off and the estate can be used to help pay for funeral expenses?

Thanks in advance.

MC

Lets face it Bob, you've taken the OP's money for something you were going to deliver once paid for in full. Your £400 richer, the OP is £400 poorer yet your greed has led you to employ the services of a company to recover monies for a service not yet rendered!

As far as I can see, you offered your services and certain products free. Then said, when the OP pays in full you will burn the images (taken for free) to a DVD disk, which you will charge £800 for.

You have £400 of the OP's money, the OP has -£400 and only what you offered free in return. Nice work if you can get it HUH!

Don't lecture me on what is right or wrong or imply that I would not pay you if I were to employ your services, which as I have made clear I wouldn't!

Had you given the DVD disk at the time, then the OP not paid anything I might have some sympathy for you. But no it is not the case is it?

Perhaps, a resolution may be that as you have 50% of the agreed sum, you might offer to burn 50% of the images to a disk for the OP and close the matter.

Oh and newstarter, take your tounge out of his arse!

Wow, I live near that studio and was considering going there for a whole load of family stuff.

Definately won't be now if that is the way they treat people who have fallen into financial difficulties through no fault of their own. I'll be telling my extended family and friends too!

I wish the OP the best of luck with this one, but it doesn't appear that the owner is prepared to negotiate even though he is responsible for employing a bunch of neanderthal thugs to threaten and bully the OP.

Seems to me that neither side has got what they want at this stage, but the studio costs would have been similar with or without the OP walking through the door, after all you have to pay your leccy bill and staff wages regardless of 0 or 100 customers!

MC

Thanks again nicklea. I was just thinking that the date of notice was the important legal date, which does differ. But it is no matter, just one of many bow strings I'm plucking at.

Very useful thank you. These debts are part of a failed IVA. Is the date of default when my IVA failed or when it started?

I believe it should be the date that the original creditor defaulted you.

MC

The point I am trying to make is that you really should have done all this reading a long time before you ever got to this point.

 

 

 

The above quote is a case in point, you are wasting time with this as it does not matter how you get notice of an assignment

Hi nicklea, and sorry for the hijacking to the OP.

Could you just cast your eye over my final post please? Here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?284421-1st-Crud-CCA-SAR-Failure-(also-Citi-too)-Help-Please&p=3233025#post3233025

This one is for nicklea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Notice in writing.

In order that the assignee may obtain the benefit of the Law of Property Act 1925, express notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person1 from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or the chose or thing in action2. Where there are joint debtors and covenantors, notice to one who is a bankrupt is unnecessary3. The notice need not be formal4, and need not be written with the intention that it should perform the function of giving notice5; but it must be given even though the debtor cannot read6. The assignment only operates under the Act as from the date of the notice7, that is, the date on which it is received by or on behalf of the debtor8. If the debt is released or extinguished by payment or otherwise before notice is given, there is no transfer under the Act9.

It has been held that if the date of the assignment is wrongly stated the notice is ineffectual10, though if no date is given at all the notice may be good11. It may also be ineffectual if it does not state the amount of the debt correctly12.

The Act prescribes no limit of time within which the notice must be given13, and a notice given after the death of the assignor14, or after the death of the assignee15, is effectual.

The Act does not prescribe that the notice must be given by any particular person16. Thus it may be given by the personal representatives of a deceased assignee, even though no notice has been given by him or by the original or any intermediate assignee17.

In the case of a company, notice to the manager at the works, though not communicated by him to the head office, may be sufficient18.

It is thought that where there have been two assignments of the same debt, of both of which notice has been given to the debtor, but the assignee under the second assignment, without having notice of the first, gave notice to the debtor of his assignment before notice was given of the first assignment, he will have priority19.

If a debtor has given a negotiable instrument, for example a cheque, in payment of the debt, a subsequent notice that the debt has been assigned may be disregarded by the debtor even if the creditor still holds the cheque20.

10 Stanley v English Fibres Industries Ltd (1899) 68 LJQB 839; WF Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169, [1956] 1 WLR 419, CA. It is not so in the case of an equitable assignment: Whittingstall v King (1882) 46 LT 520.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question is as regards the bit above that I have bolded. As you may know I have earlier stated that I have two different dates given to me as regards the NoA, which (in my mind at least - small as it is) could possibly make the Asssignment inefectual?

cheers.

MC

Edit:

Here are the NoA's in pdf form, which clearly give contradicting dates:

[ATTACH]23745[/ATTACH]

Edit again: Oh and a further contradiction is that, in my SAR from Citi, they state that the account was sold to 1st Crud in March 2003, so that makes three different dates!

I'm 'avin a blonde 'un today lol

Could be worse, you could be 'avin an Essex blonde 'un today!

I am from Essex, so I'm allowed to say that!

Yes, sorry, SAR time scale is 40 calender days then report to the ICO.

 

My last reply should have read, FOS instead of ICO, OOPS!

ty and you are forgiven bb, probably more my fault for unecessarily muddying the water.

So fos now or wait til eight weeks, despite not having acknowledged the complaint at all?

MC

If/when you have exhausted Citi's formal complaints procedure and eight weeks has passed, then you complain to the ICO

Thanks bb, well they have not acknowledged my formal complaint, missed the 4 week deadline and the eight weeks will be up 04/01/2011. So do I just refer immediately to the FOS as regards not dealing with my complaint?

The 40 day deadline for my SAR was 08/12/2010 and subsequent requests for them to comply have essentially been ignored, so is it now over to the ICO for non-compliance?

thanks again,

MC

Wow nicklea, you are a star of awesome magnitude. thank you soooooooo much!

How would I go about making such a request?

BTW, my bro is getting sorted now thanks to you and others. Much obliged there.

MC

subbing

Go for it - well done

Thanks for your support CD, I shall be shouting very loudly to all whom should listen. Will keep the updates coming as and when.

MC

Sorry to hijack your thread mines a pint, but I too have a defaulted Egg loan taken out in 2001 for which I'm repaying and I'm pretty sure that I used the loan partially to clear an Egg credit card!

I don't really understand the importance of this 'multiple agrrements', could someone briefly explain what the implications are?

Cheers. MC

An update as to where we are today with 1st crud:

I received a final response in relation to my formal complaint as regards harassment etc. They deny any wrong doing, but admit that they can see why I may have felt pressured by one of their phone monkeys in October when he repeatedly coerced me to pay the account with a newly acquired credit card. A laughable contradiction!

The best part though is my complaint began with a couple phone calls I received back in Aug/Sep 2008. I clearly stated in my complaint that the first call was received Sunday, 17th August, 2008. But they have replied saying they investigated a call the following day! And they also completely ignored my mention of the second phone call! And this coming from the industries leading compliance department (allegedly).

So a rather lenghty response has been sent today and finished with I'll now be taking this up with the OFT, FOS, Trading Standards etc.

Also sent today is the account in dispute letter based on CCA request failure and I've also disputed the balance claimed, was waiting for a response from the ICO, but have considered that I could be collecting my pension before I get a reply from them.

I've also put my money where my mouth is and withdrawn support for their Christmas party by cancelling my STO. Maybe not enough to prevent the bubbly flowing, but perhaps there will be a few bottles less and maybe they'll hold fire on the party poppers!

So I'll be a few quid richer this Xmas and may well have a bottle of bubbly on them for a change!

MC

Just thought I'd give a brief rundown of what's happened so far and an update as to where I am with Citi at the moment:

28/10/2010 - Sent DSAR - Received 29/10/2010

06/11/2010 - Received letter requesting proof of ID that had already been sent along with my original request

08/11/2010 - Postal order banked by Citi (cashed before I had responded to their request)

08/11/2010 - Sent POID info again along with official complaint

20/11/2010 - Received SAR response, but incomplete. No NoA, Default Notice, Termination Notice or Agreement. Docs received were statements and application data, with very limited manual notes (nothing prior to SAR request)

22/11/2010 - Spoke to ICO regarding Citi's response to clarify certain statements that they made, essentially they were spouting a pile of poo

23/11/2010 - Sent SAR failure notice and requested that they comply fully. Although, this was sent to the same address as the original SAR and by 1st class recorded, the status went to being redirected with the Royal Maill and this is still the status today.

06/12/2010 - Phoned Citi and confirmed current postal address, then sent another letter re SAR failure.This was received 08/12/2010.

17/12/2010 - Received a very brief reply basically stating that they have already sent the information

So they are still attempting to avoid complying fully and they have completely failed to respond to my complaint in any way shape or form!

Where do I go from here, the ICO?

I know that the ICO is supposed to be under a lot of pressure, but I sent them a complaint as regards 1st Credit 12/11/2010 and I'm still waiting for it to be allocated to a case manager!

MC

Questioner, a question please.

Must the account have been in dispute at the time of the OFT breech?

Only I have evidence of a clear breech and the DCA has admitted as much, however the account is not in dispute at present (but will be soon)

ty

MC

subbing

MC

What you do with Lloyds is go into a branch (don't let them fob you off with 'call the call centre - if they do call the call centre in the branch - I've done this to good effect!) and let them know he is on benefits and the Right of Approbation should be exercised as the debt is THEIR error and not his fault.

 

Open an online Halifax account and have all the benefits paid into that.

 

If the bank don't play ball get hold of the local MP...

Thanks SG1,

Not sure what you mean by 'Rights of Approbation'. I'll be taking a trip with him to the bank Monday morning and don't want to be spouting stuff I have little understanding of, could you enlighten me please?

MC

I would just like to thank everyone who has helped and offered advice. My brother and I had a very constructive chat today (about 6 hours lol) and it seems he is convinced he needs to take positive steps now, so things are looking up.

CAG has a new member and with my help he will be posting up soon when we know what & who etc. Although I don't know what his username is at the mo', I forgot to ask DOH!

In the meantime, he has a pressing need to get his Lloyds account sorted because it seems that a fee for non payment of a STO has put him over his limit by £11 and has resulted in £75 costs, which will be £150 come 1st December. We have checked Experian and remarkably this seems clean, only Lloyds showing and everything is green. So I guess it may be worth saving this account, but if his benefits get paid in, when they're sorted out, they will just get swallowed up by these charges.

I've posted on the Lloyds forum here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?285520-Help-with-getting-charges-removed-reduced-please(1-Viewing)-nbsp if anyone has any suggestions or comments.

Thanks again to all.

MC