Jump to content

May Fly

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About May Fly

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi Thanks for the reply. Yes I know they can still ask nicely for payment but must stop if the debt is Statute Barred and that the debtor makes it clear they will not pay. I know I could point that out, but will they write again next year with another 'annual statement'? And once I confirm my address (I've ignored everything for 6 years since I stated my position to then all) what's to stop them simply selling the debt on? Telling them I won't pay and it's SB won't stop them holding and processing my data will it? In my mind they shouldn't have my data anyway because there isn't a credit agreement (so no debt), and anything that did exist is more than 6 years old and should be destroyed.
  2. Hi everyone, long time since I posted, have been keeping my head down after finding a strategy for my debts and uncooperative/unreasonable/deceitful 'creditors'. my strategy, devised at a time of severe ill health was to work out who didn't have valid agreements and claims and to tell them the facts and to sod off, and those who did have a rightful claim were offered a token sum as F&F. The first group claimed I was wrong, or simply ignored me, and the latter either demanded full settlement or ignored me. Either way, anything arriving after their response to my statement of facts was ignored - my position was clear and I wasn't going to waste time arguing. If they were convinced of their position, they could take legal action. The strategy worked because they lost interest in me. Now, 6 years later, an ugly vision has reappeared, but it pre-empts my intention to ask for help in making sure everything truly has gone away. This problem concerns HBOS who were awful to deal with. Getting simple responses from them was impossible, and at one point I was forwarding their responses to my complaints to their Secretary asking him to clarify the rubbish that was supposed to be answers to my complaints. In 2009 I started investigating the status of the account, and following the collective wisdom of this site, my CCA was a recon, and the DSAR resulted in a 2 page document. One page for my address etc (pre-filled when sent to me), the 2nd page was clauses/conditions. The last clause was 1.8 and it referred to another clause, 8.2 which gave them the right to vary the conditions. I considered the agreement incomplete (where were clauses 1.9 - 8 and maybe more?) and wrote advising them. I received more info, and again wrote that I still didn't have what I considered a complete agreement, and there were other things missing from the DSAR - fees paid, manual interventions etc. In short, I never received any more of the agreement. In early Aug 2010, I wrote to the Secretary (3rd letter) saying they didn't have an agreement, and so could not recover anything, quoting WILSON and THE FIRST COUNTY TRUST LIMITED in the High Court, [2001] EWCA Civ 633. The Judges commented : "In effect, the creditor – by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms – must …….be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid." I considered HBOS fell in this category. HBOS had also issued a dodgy default notice (this was at the time of the 'unlawfully repudiated' defence). Whilst stating several times that I did not consider any debt existed, and that no agreement existed, I complained that they were processing my data and passing it to debt collectors, in breach of the Data Protection Act. I asked them to stop processing the data, prevent others from doing so, remove the default on my Credit file etc. They never replied. Things went quiet. In June 2014 I got a letter from Lowell saying I had been advised by another Lowell company that they had bought the debt. I hadn't had any such notice (no surprise) and as I didn't consider any debt/agreement existed, and as I had not received any evidence that Lowell had any contract with me, I ignored it. Things went quiet again. I have just received another letter from Lowell - an "Annual Statement" "for information only as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" covering the period June 2014 to June 2016. (Obviously Lowell have a problem with understanding what 'annual' means lol). The balance quoted is the balance quoted by HBOS so there hasn't been anything added/deducted to the balance. Now, in my own mind, they don't have an agreement. The account was opened in 2005, HBOS couldn't supply the agreement in 2010, and there is even less chance of it being produced now. There is no way I am paying anything to this account. My quandary is that I am concerned about how much info is still out there concerning my accounts. Lowell are obviously still holding my data even though it was just over 6 years ago that I stated firmly that as no agreement existed, no debt existed either (using words from the High Court judge - the money had been gifted to me). I think they are in breach of the DPA by holding my data without my agreement, and as the account was closed in Aug 2009 it is past the 6 years rule anyway. The statement says it is for information only - is that usual or an admission that the debt is unenforceable? I wrote to all creditors in July/Aug 2010 either telling them the debt was unenforceable or offering a one-off F&F. As a result, all my debts are at least 6 years old since last being acknowledged, and my concern is that the cycle of demands will start again as the dregs of debt collection start a last gasp effort to recover something. I am concerned about using Noddle or Clearscore because I am not on the electoral register and am worried that updating my credit file will simply start the cycle of demands again. I have been waiting until I am positive more than 6 years has elapsed so that everything is statute barred and I guess that time is now. Hopefully everything will have gone from my file but what do I do if it hasn't? and what do I do about the dregs that are obviously still processing 6 YO data as Lowell obviously are?
  3. Interesting, I'll probably have a look and see how things are for me. To those who may be interested in using this or similar services but are worried about giving an email address, many email providers allow users to use an 'alias' email. This is another email address that is sent to your main email inbox. The advantage is that when you've finished with that alias and you don't want anyone contacting you, you can just erase it. Any emails sent to it will just bounce back as undeliverable. Or, you can of course set up another email and use that, and abandon it afterwards. The disadvantage is that you have to check that account as well as your 'real' one.
  4. I've only just come across this, and to get the discussion back on track: This isn't an accident. I work for a supplier to Tesco, and they have some real dirty tricks, one of which may explain what they've been caught here. One of their tricks, when it gets to their half year or year end reporting, is to stop paying suppliers. Of course they get the delivers according to the order, but just refuse to pay according to the T&C. This boosts the money they have on hand, which goes in their report. They probably also report the goods received as an asset also, again boosting their worth. After the reporting period, we have to argue to be paid, and eventually they pay most of the bill, making deductions for various false reasons. These deductions add up to tens of thousands for us along, every year, on top of other unfair deductions they make, claiming damaged items, incorrect items etc. Sue them people might say, the fact is, if we did sue, they'd immediately stop selling all our products which would cause us to make immediate redundancies - you can't simply find sales on this scale overnight. Some interesting facts about the supermarket sector: They charge a listing fee to put your product on the shelf. These can be thousands of pounds per product. The fee is offset against sales. Of course you have no control over where your product is placed, except if you pay more, you can get a better position. 2 for 1 offers are paid for by the supplier. The supermarket isn't giving you a discount, its in the contract that that will but so many units at a certain reduction. Of course, if you're Tesco, you run a promotion, get the figures wrong and sell out your reduced items. What do you do? Easy, you stock the shelf with items you bought at full price, and the demand, (withhold) the full feel, paying the discounted fee instead. So, they order, say 100,000 units are half price, realise they need more to avoid cancelling the promotion earlier than advertised, so take an unauthorised deduction to their invoice for another say, 100,000 units. When you take item back to a supermarket, they're only to glad to replace it. That's because not only do they get a replacement from the suppler, but they make an admin charge to the supplier - £20 per item. So, you buy a tin of soup and take it back because it "tastes funny". There's no evidence of that, but they tell you to go get another tin. For the workload of allowing you to go back to the store, and allowing you to get yourself another tin, whilst they scan the bar code, they charge £20, plus the cost of another tin. Of course, there's no explanation of that deduction from their next invoice, so they have to be chased for it, which soaks up more time and money. Tescos haven't been caught, everyone in the supply chain side at Tesco have always known about their tricks. The new man coming in has decided that if he doesn't stop it now, he'll be tainted as well. Thats why its come out now thats all. The previous guy was at tesco since he was about 15 I think, do you not think someone with that experience would not know what goes on? Thats why so many have been suspended, because the tricks go so deep. Its all gone quiet now, so I imagine in a short while, they'll all be reinstated and it'll all be put down to a mistake, lack of training, or software problem. And in a while they'll be back to their tricks again, but maybe doing it slightly differently. There must be a lot of skeletons buried somewhere, and digging them up won't do much for the share price. As the shareholders may vent their ire at the man overseeing such unearthing, I guess the new man won't pushed things too far. Wipe the alate clean and carry on.
  5. signed if you ask me, the whole defaults process needs a radical overhaul, as does all of the banking and finance industry
  6. Don't have much confidence in ATOL/ABTA etc. Have heard they are very biased towards the company, a nd not sure if the dispute would be covered. Am interested in people's views of the FOS, if complaints are worthwhile, if the correct logical decisions are reached etc, or if they are biased towards the banks. I don't really have much confidence in any of the regulators based on my experience so am reluctant to waste time with the FOS unless it's likely to be considered fairly, by people who live in the real world. Don't have any confidence in banks, we've seen in recent years how dishonest, corrupt and incompetent they are, and the reply from the bank that there is no claim because we had no contract with the hotel doesn't really surprise me, they'll try anything to weedle out of their responsibilities. does anyone have any experience of the FOS and s75? and does anyone have any feelinsg about it being worthwhile arguing with the bank about their interpretation of the Act? Incidentally, are banks supposed to advise customers that they can take their dispute to the Ombudsman? Lastly, is this the best forum because only one response (albeit from such a prominent forum member, and gratefully received anyway) is a supprise. I am sure there are many members with experience of s75 and the FOS. Maybe the latter members hang out in the debt forum? We'd appreciate advice as we are both in bad health and want to make best use of the limited energy we have.
  7. We recently had a holiday that was awful, and on our return complained to the Tour Operator (following up our complaint to the resort reps). The tour operator gave us the complete brush off, so we made a Section 75 request to the credit card company. 2 months later they have responded and turned down the claim. The bank claims that for s75 to apply there must be an unbroken link between debtor, creditor and supplier. In this case they claim the supplier was the hotel. Their basis for refusal is that the main complaint was the filthy, dangerous state of the hotel, and because we didn't pay the hotel ourselves (it was a package holiday) there is no 'link' between debtor, creditor and supplier as the hotel was the supplier at fault. Now, anyone with even a basic grasp of contract law knows that if you subcontract part of a job, you still remain responsible for the work, and that the 'link' the bank claims is broken is in fact completely intact, but it stops at the tour operator who received our money and was responsible for providing everything concerned with the holiday. Even though the tour operator subcontracted the provision of accommodation to the hotel, they remain liable for fulfilling that contractual requirement. Now, the question is, is it worthwhile pointing this out to the misguided or simply ignorant/dishonest bank employee (in which case can anyone suggest some suitable wording or legal argument?) or, as 8 weeks have now passed since the complaint I understand it can be investigated by Financial Services Ombudsman. Would a better tactic (than arguing with the bank about the interpretation of the Act) be to complain to the Financial Services Ombudsman about the Bank's incorrect and rather creative interpretation of s75? Can you just imagine if the bank was correct? You had your car repaired at a garage and the parts fitted were faulty.... according to the bank not their problem because you don't have any contract with the manufacturer of the parts.... or you ordered something mail order and it didn't arrive, again, not covered by s75 because you didn't have any agreement with the courier company and didn't pay them....
  8. I quoted this and more to my bank when they refused to process my CCA and SAR request. At the time I had recently been injured and had limited use of my arm/hand so my efforts at a signature didn't match the one given 9 years ago when the account was opened and with the advent of switch cards hadn't been used for several years anyway. The excuse the bank gave was that a signature was required to compare with that of the account holder as part of their procedures to prevent account info being released to the wrong person. I complained to the ICO pointing out that the bank was sending statements to my address which was the same one used for my requests, and that the ICOs guidelines to banks was that proof of identity may not be needed if they are corresponding to the address normally used for the account (as mentioned in dx's point 2 above), and that (if I remember correctly) a signature wasn't sufficient proof of ID for sensitive info, so relying on a signature in this instance for identification purposes didn't comply with the guidelines for the DPA. The ICO accepted that comparison of signatures was part of the banks procedures in place to comply with the Data Protection Act and therefore the bank wasn't doing anything wrong. I pointed out that as a disabled person I couldn't make a signature I was effectively being discriminated against but they didn't want to know. A signature isn't proof of anything other than that the signer is in agreement with the contents of the document he is signing. I think there has been many arguments over the requirement for a signature over the years and I think a lot of it is sheer awkwardness from the banks because they don't want the work of looking for the documents and if the cannot supply them it puts you in a good position. So they stall. Sadly, the IDC is weal on this and ,any of points because as they told me the clock on the request only starts when they accept it, if they refuse it because of the signature, the clock hasn't started. Mind you, that was about 2 years ago so maybe the ICO's position has changed some since then...
  9. From the Information Commissioner's website: (http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/subject_access_requests) Its possible they didnt receive it, although I know from personal experience (and documented on this site) that many times, recorded letters ARE received but simply not signed for. ... which makes the 'service' useless if you want to prove receipt. However, stuff sent through the post is assumed to have got there. Not responding to a SAR is an offence under the DPA, but the ICO is about as fast as a drunken snail finding its way round a maze, but its still worth complaining because they give priority to SARs made for legal action. I would be inclined to make a complaint to the ICO about the SAR not being complied with. You might also make another one getting proof of posting instead of recorded. That way you have proof that you did post it and it will be assumed to have arrived. However, if you do initiate legal action, I think there is a process where they have to supply information to you for you to prepare your case. There are plenty in this site that can give more advice about that process. I think like most large companies they are using a process of wearing you down. By not actually dealing with the complaints, they are hoping hoping you will just give up - most people do. Perhaps writing a letter of complaint about them not dealing with your original comp, aint to the person at the 'highest level', CCd to a newspaper etc (so BG know you are keeping someone else informed) will prompt someone to sit up and realise that this might bit THEM on the backside THEY don't deal with it. However, I think you need to decide if you do want to pursue this, and if so, do it. They've had enough time to deal with your case, they're not going to suddenly see the light and start treating customers decently unless they're made to. And once they know your threats are empty, they know their service levels to you don't need to improve. First thing you should do is change your supplier.
  10. I've just read this thread and am as horrified as when I read the last one where the dog was injured. I only hope that the OP does in fact pursue it to the bitter end and doesn't let it go now she's got gas. |The only way to stop these things happening to others is to prosecute the injustice to the end, shame BG and make them pay. As soon as she go the supply back, she should have switched to another supplier. I can imagine if she did, BG would block it because of the 'debt'. That would be more ammo to use against them of course. As for the 'investigation' at 'high level'.... poppycock come to mind. These has been rumbling on for weeks, and if it was being pursued at the 'high level', progress would be faster. As it is, it looks to me like they are looking for some kind of 'plausible deniability' to make it all look like a genuine very rare combination of very rare circumstances that led to genuine errors being made, including misinformation from you - you did ask for the PPM to be removed didn't you, and didn't ask for a replacement meter? That way they can simply say partly your fault, very rare, can't possibly happen again.
  11. This is a most disturbing thread. However, to comment on the above, a couple of years ago when I had trouble with a utility company, I had several letters about the arrears which mentioned that a rep had called several times but I was either not at home or refused to discuss the matter. The rep had in fact visited, and simply left a card or envelope with a message scribbled on it hanging out the letter box (one note left hanging out the letter box said "payment must be made now, a warrant is being applied for" it was handed to me by my neighbour who saw it hanging there). On each occasion I was in and no attempt was made to ring the bell or use the knocker. One night I saw someone coming up the drive and thought "who's that scruffy oik?" only to see her approach the door and walk away. That was another 'visit' that was classed as me not being in. So, although in this case BG SHOULD have contacted the resident, that is different from saying they WOULD have. I think we should remember that. Time and time again on this site we see examples of lenders, banks, DCAs etc breaking the law let alone internal procedures, so let's not assume they did things correctly. The changing of the meter has been totally bungled and I think it's reasonable to assume that things were bungled before the meter swapping as well. In any case, even if they did write to the tenant, once the situation had been explained, it doesn't entitle them to ignore the explanation, to write again and then follow up on the threats made. They can't justify what they did by saying they wrote several times. ONE explanation of the facts should have been enough, and as BG had the tenancy agreement, its safe to assume they knew all the facts. In short, it doesn't matter how many time they wrote (if at all), they knew this debt wasn't hers and by writing and expecting to get money from her, they were simply harassing her. Writing multiple times once they had the facts simply adds more misconduct to their record.
  12. sad news, Martin helped too many people to count over the years, many of them in desperate situations, and in the early days when fighting back against unfairness of big businesses was unheard of.
  13. this prosecution was 2 years ago, but only published 2 months ago???? does it take the SRA THAT long to conclude a case, or do they delay publishing the results? In any case, many of the statements in the prosecution ring bells, because I made the same complaints about Munn in July 2010 only to be told that Munn was entitled to make them.... I like to feel that in some small way, my complaint, even if it was rejected, played some part in eventually reeling him in somewhat. What was the 'punishment' handed out to Munn? I have a feeling he may have had smacked wrists but that;s about all.
  14. I did hear last year, the figure was 8-17p in the pound, and for SB, about 3p/£ Can't say if those figures are correct, but don't imagine they're that far out
  • Create New...