Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Asbestross

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Well done for standing your ground, but for me personally; it sounds like you're being too lenient with him considering you have active judgments against him. Make the next letter detail potential bailiff action should he fail to make payment as ajudged. You've given him plenty of opportunity to pay what he was ordered to pay, he hasnt, take the next logical step or he will continue to evade payment.
  2. Hi Sequenci, Couldnt agree more and in the latest correspondence from the FSCS, they did agree that there was no outstanding liability to WFS. They instructed WFS to make payment of the refund direct to myself; however WFS refused to accept this and passed it back to the FSCS to review again. This was in May IIRC and its been with them since. If i'm completely honest, I'm confused as to why the reclaim is with the legal team at the FSCS. They instructed WFS to make payment direct, WFS refused to do so. I'm starting to suspect that it may be the case that WFS are refusing to follow the instruction of the FSCS and they are taking legal action against WFS as a result; but without feedback from the FSCS I cannot confirm or deny this unfortunately. My concern is simply that FSCS have gone completely silent and are refusing (it would seem) to divulge any information as to the progress of my claim, but why? I thought the FSCS acted on my behalf and hence should be openly providing details of the current progress. Cheers
  3. Well over two weeks and still no update, even with assurances from the Head of Legal that he would provide one. Can anybody advise if it would be beneficial serving a SAR on the FSCS for an update on my claim? Or would it be pointless? Cheers
  4. Slight update, have had a response from an email I sent to the head of legal at the FSCS advising he will investigate and respond shortly. I guess there is some light at the end of the tunnel finally Will update with any further progress. Thanks
  5. Was the first thing I thought of tbh, but all emails have been sent to an @fscs.org.uk address and letters sent to: Financial Services Compensation Scheme 10th Floor Beaufort House 15 St Botolph Street London EC3A 7QU
  6. As far as I was aware, with WFS being in Default it would be the FSCS who would make the payment (?) suspect they issued the funds to WFS to settle and in turn they then passed it to MKDP. At this stage, i'm afraid you know as much as I do as trying to get more information from either the FSCS / WFS is like getting blood from a stone unfortunately. I've threatened WFS with court action via a LBA at the end of August this year, they simply responded by saying that as it was with the FSCS I couldnt take legal action against them.. . is this bs? Thanks dx
  7. Hi all, Looking for some advice with my PPI reclaim and Welcome Finance. Quite a long winded background story to it so i'll keep it brief. In August last year, having checked my CallCredit record, I became aware of an outstanding account with WFS for a HP agreement taken out in 2006. I voluntarily terminated after half way through the contract and was advised that I had no outstanding liability at the time. They sent no correspondence to me to advise there was an overdue amount and I heard nothing from them since. I contacted the company who had bought the account, MKDP who quickly advised it was for the WF HP agreement and sent me a copy. A quick read through the contract made me realised I was missold PPI on several points, so a claim was raised to WFS in December last year. Obviously had to jump through all the various hoops etc filling out the FSCS forms and such. In March, the FSCS concluded their investigation, agreeing that I had been mis-sold PPI to the value of £1700~; however that this amount would be offset against any outstanding account I held with Welcome Financial Services, obviously I was unhappy with this as according to a SAR I had served on them earlier in the year, they had written off the account and sold it to MKDP. So, I sent a response to FSCS advising of this and asking they pay the mis-sold premium to myself so that I may negotiate with the third party company. Very soon after asking for this review. MKDP wrote to me thanking me for my payment and advising the account was now closed So, fast foward to May 2013. I receive the conclusion of the review requested from the FSCS; who agreed that I had been mis-sold, and that I had no outstanding liabilities to WFS at the time of their decision. It states uncategorically that they will instruct WFS to make cash payment direct to myself. Around a week later, having heard nothing from WFS, I contacted them asking for payment to be made. They responded at the end of May advising that they had referred the matter back to FSCS, which is where it is today, apparently still with the FSCS legal team under review. Does anybody have any advice to offer. I've contacted FSCS to ask for updates several times over the past few months and each time am told the same thing "It is currently being reviewed by our legal team and we will update you once a decision has been made". WFS simply respond by saying its still with the FSCS and refuse to discuss the matter further. Any advice? Cheers
  8. Oh believe me i've tried. Going back to the end of last year I had confirmation from the original creditor that there was no account on their system with my details when I served a SAR on them. All very suspect indeed, but so far MMF are just blatently refusing to investigate it. Had several letters from MMF at the start of this year when I was requesting further information, but nothing proving liability and as soon as I requested that, all went silent on their part. Have never banked with Santander too but I suppose its impossible to prove a negative I've sent several letters over the past 6 months in formal complaint and not had a single thing back; have threatened them with court action, FOS etc, still nothing. My intention was when I received their compliance and further information, I would be making application to the courts to force them to remove the incorrect data; but decided I would let the ICO action run its course and then pursue court action. Will look very strongly in my favour if I show the courts all the neglect on their part and refusal to investigate after 9+ months I suppose. In no rush as have no desire for credit atm too. IMHO MMF truly believe that legislation does not apply to them and that they are above the law. I hope that your mass complaint to the OFT may prompt some further action and wish you all the very best of luck on this front; obviously if anything from my experiences or documents help in any way shape or form, i'm glad to assist:oops: Cheers
  9. Hi Brig, Currently at work atm, but will collate all letters I've had and send them over. There aren't many as MMF refuse to send anything via post and ignore all emails / letters I send. I am tempted to agree with you regarding the SAR and data only available is what was given; however they are the one's who've placed data within my credit file, not the company they're apparently collecting on behalf of. They've also informed Equifax / Experian that they have original contracts signed and dated and apparently proof of monies being deposited into my account with Santander (who'm i've never banked with). When asked to substantiate this claim; I was ignored as usual. Equifax / Experian trusted their word and kept the data on my file. I think its more on principle that i'm pushing this through with the ICO; they have a strict lesson to learn here and by god they're going to learn it. I served a S7 request to try and prove to them that they have the wrong person and the account is clearly a case of mistaken identity; cant help with the feeling that they know it and are refusing to adhere as they fear the reprocussions? Catch-22 though for them though, if they do not have any further information / documents, they clearly lied to Equifax / Experian in their responses. If they do, they're clearly refusing to comply with a SAR. If it was the case that they havent got any further documentation; a simple letter explaining this would suffice. But how would this reflect on them as a company when they're so aggressively pursuing an account when they cannot even verify it is legitimate or that they have the right person. Hmm.... I'll get the documents over to you as soon as. Thanks again, Asbestross
  10. Hi, Just wanted to offer some information regarding MMF in relation to the ongoing saga i'm going through. In December 2012 I served upon them a S7 SAR which they blatently ignored. Had all proof that they received my request and cashed the cheque but non-compliance. In January 2013 a formal complaint was sent to MMF; which again they ignored. At the end of January 2013 a LBA was issued; again blatently ignored even though they signed for it. February 2013 a complaint was raised to the ICO for their non-compliance who investigated. Originally MMF claimed to the ICO they had never received my request and that the person who had signed for it is not employed by MMF and is not known to them. This claim was quickly quashed when it was proven he was an employee as one of the emails received contained the signatory name. Oooops! After they were informed of this, they changed their stance to "We never received payment". Which again was quashed with proof of cheque clearing to their account. Although the ICO's findings was that they believed MMF to have received my request and processed the payment, that their failure to comply was not due to neglect or wilful intention apparently. They wrote to MMF in May 2013 requesting they re-imburse the statutory fee and comply with my request within 40 days. 40 Days came and went and still remained no compliance from MMF, nor any reimbursement. The ICO was contacted again in July 2013, who in turn contacted MMF to ask why they failed to comply. In August 2013 a single page letter was received from MMF headed "Compliance with Section 7 request", this document was only a printed spreadsheet detailing the current balance of an account they claim I am liable for and date it was aquired from the 'original lender'. Their response in no way constituted compliance to a SAR and the ICO was once more informed of this. As of today, the ICO are still investigating, however I suspect with MMF's prior actions, the ICO will be either taking sanctions or forcing compliance via the courts as per my latest conversation with the ICO. So far, I have received well in excess of 150+ emails of a threatening nature from MMF, have received no correspondence via post with the exception of their proposed Compliance spreadsheet. This company are treading in dangerous waters in my opinion and are displaying a blatent disregard for legislation. Hopefully justice will be served soon and I have every confidence that the ICO will take appropriate action, obviously i'll update when further progress is made though. Thanks all, Asbestross
  11. To be perfectly honest, you could show them proof in black and white that they are responsible. They'd still swear blind that you made the changes yourself. I think from this aspect the next logical step would be to provide the police with your IP address. That way they will see that it is clearly different to what they are claiming the changes originated from. The only problem I can see with this is that at the end of the day; the recording of the IP address from which it did originate is reported via their systems. Should they wish to be dishonest, it wouldnt be much effort at all to change that address on the report to match the IP address which you originally signed up for. To obtain your own IP address; simply google 'what is my IP' Can I ask, generally speaking, the geographical location of the IP. Is this close to where you live?
  12. I'd also like to make a point on here also; if the company are insinuating that an 'individual' accessed their systems from an address in manchester. They're blatently lying. The IP address assigned to an individual PPP session when a router connects to the internet, (apart from checking their ISP's INTERNAL DHCP logs) cannot be traced back to an address or even geographical location. The IP when checked via who.is will purely show the registrants address, or the address of the ISP for that persons connection. The geographical location of that 'user' is completely hidden. (I've worked telecommunications technical support for many years) Secondly with any account involving credit, normally you cannot 'update' your address via their internet portal systematically. So to say that you've personally logged in and made the change yourself is proposterous; think about it logically for a minute. You take a loan, decide you dont want to pay them, so just log in and change it to a fictious address to avoid further contact. All change of addresses on accounts would need to be verified in person, clearly that hasnt happened. This is absolutely horrific, and aside from giving my two pence worth, I would just like to wish you the very best of luck. Will be following with interest!
  13. Sorry, further enforcement such as an Attachment of Earnings order etc. I doubt entirely they made applicaton to adjourn via N244, more than likely they just sent a letter to the court manager? And as for claiming costs only if you won, even if you dont you should still be able to argue that the claimant provided no notice of intent to adjourn and as such, regardless of the outcome of the hearing, you had expenses for the unnecessary visit. That is dependant on the judge tho
  14. I'd also be inclined to write a letter to the court requesting a copy of this fax that they sent, feels very much like stalling tactics to draw out the process even further. At the end of the day they've known for at least a month of the hearing date and had every opportunity to reschedule, yet they chose to submit this to the court on the morning of the hearing.... when you eventually get to a hearing i'd also ask the judge to consider wasted costs for the vacated hearing (absence from work, travel costs etc) Have you checked with the court to see if they've applied for further enforcement (AoE etc) in the meantime btw? They may be stalling to allow more time for an application to go through?
  15. I do agree huggy, I did come out guns blazing but never had the intention of taking them for every penny... i had goal of getting the judgment set-aside and wiped off my file, fair enough it cost me £80 for the court app, but in comparison to 6 years of bad credit history I'm content. It's not the end of the story though, once I have confirmation from the court that the case has been abandoned and confirmation that they've removed the defaults i'll be raising another complaint to the OFT for their conduct. Doing what they did, and just waving the white flag when its challenged shows that they're clearly using the courts as a debt collection tactic instead of for the enforcement that it allows, and for that I'm sure the OFT would appreciate the feedback. I also had to be realistic, the claim was only for an amount up to £400 and was never going to pay me massive amounts in damages should I have pursued it further though? Cheers
  • Create New...