Jump to content

DavidP24

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About DavidP24

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi Has anyone known of HCEO's or Debt Collection Agencies using DHL or other Couriers to confirm address? (if you sign for it they know you are there). I have a had a card through the door, I am not expecting anything and I have been incredibly careful about not giving out my address or using credit ref agencies. I was homeless for a long time and only recently housed due to damage in RTA, I have mental health issues. I lost everything I had when I became homeless except a 20 year old car worth £500 if I am lucky. My home has items from freecycle and a computer lent by a friend. I would go bankrupt but do not have the money, most of my debt was insured and sold off. It is too much for a IVA and I am three years into it being beyond statute. I have been online and tracked the item, it came from a town in the North where there is a large firm of HCEO's which is why I thought it might be them. Has anyone seen them use DHL or other couriers in this way?
  2. I have found that putting a number on TPS actually INCREASES the number of calls. I can only assume that the people that are supposed to cross reference the TPS have found a way to grab data. Has anyone else had this happen? I am going to try again on a new sim that I hardly use.
  3. Thanks for reply, I have no problem with people who take credit being subject to CRA, as you say if someone is going to sell you a £1500 mobile phone over two years they want to know you can come up with the payments. However, you seemed to have missed my point, I am not taking credit, was not told during sign up process that my data would be shared and as a utility it is not credit. I prepaid annual contract and still they shared my data every month. Consumers should have a RIGHT to not participate in CRA, I do not want to engage them because they even add that to their records. I realise that in itself will reduce my credit worthyness but that is my decision. I cannot think of anything more private than ones credit status, I am not a creditor I am a customer and that is my point, it is unlawful. Their terms which were hidden at the point of sale said they would do an identity check, that is fair enough, but not that they would share my data every month, There was no meaningful way of opting out and you are tied into a contract for 18 months. Then I find that they are only sharing my data (along with that of four million others) to get themselves free access to CRA. As I said, access to this data is shared with a plethora of companies, some of whom sell it on. For example Capita shareholder services use the CRA data to find shareholders, that has nothing to do with credit, they just have an alert on people and get a notification when you make a payment to a company. The thing is nobody really knows who it is shared with once it is provided. It is beyond your control.
  4. I am new to this forum but Marstons seem to get a lot of coverage, you might want to PM those who mention them and ask them to post on this thread. As far as I can see whole industry seem to be a bunch of cowboys who seem to think they can do what the hell they like and get off on the power trip.
  5. I have had first hand experience of this, many people say that Courts turn a blind eye if CPR are not followed but not if the other party has a Barrister who will refer to white book notes that are not even on the MOJ website. How do I know? It happened to me and cost me, I queried why two forms were needed and got them to accept one only to have the Judge and for them to throw it out. So these are the two forms you need, if you need help filling them out PM me and I might be able to send you a link to or email you a completed one. http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n244-eng.pdf http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n001-eng.pdf You should be aware that the law in this area was updated in 2015 with the deregulation act. Technically yours is not a counterclaim as the Landlords case has finished and you lost. My advice to ANYONE using this procedure in Court is to use a lawyer, you do not stand a chance representing in person when the Landlord brings in Counsel. To add insult to injury you have to pay their fees if you lose. Do not use a no win no fee lawyer as they use your settlement, I can recommend one in London who specialise in this. It does not matter if you are far from London as the other side will be paying your costs. You can only avoid legal fee of other side if there is grounds for appeal, if you owed the money as rent and you did not pay you do not really have right of appeal. Generally right of appeal is when you are asking a Court to consider something that the original Judge missed. There are two aspects of the obligation of the landlord,, 1st is to protect the deposit, 2nd is to issue prescribed information telling you where it is held, PI is exactly that, they have to tell you specifics in the way it sets out. So if a Landlord said your deposit is held at the DPS but did not give you details they would fail PI, but Judge would be sympathetic if they did indeed protect it in your name. The minimum you get is 1x deposit plus the deposit back, the max is 3x the deposit plus the deposit back. DO NOT allow the Landlord to return your deposit, do not provide them bank details or let them give you a cheque. Now if you are smart you do not even go to Court. You write a letter directly to the Landlord, you say that you are writing to advise him that you are now taking legal action against them for failure to protect deposit and failure to provide Prescribed infornmation relating to said deposit. You say that despite the history you would like to give them a chance to resolve this matter amicably without the expense of legal representation of both sides. You say that any communication at all from his solicitor will be seen as his declining your offer of an amicable settlement as you will feel the need to have your own lawyer respond. You then lay out your offer, now if it is a slam dunk case that he did not protect deposit or provide the PI then you ask for 3x rent plus the return of the deposit. The benefit to him is that he avoids paying his and your legal fees. Say that this amount is non negotible. You also request that he provide you with a positive reference. You then throw in the sweetener, you say that upon receipt of his payment you will then pay it toward the current amount you owe him. You need to give him 7 days to agree or decline your offer. If he did not protect the deposit then he knows he will lose and his own lawyer should tell him to accept offer as he will save on paying two sides legal fees. If he tries to negotiate, stand your ground and say that you want to resolve amicably and you have made a fair and reasonable offer that will save him £3k to £5k in legal fees on top of the S214 sanction of 3x rent and the deposit. If he will not negotiate then the Court will take a dim view of him wasting their time, you can say "I did try to resolve matter without legal fees but Landlord left me no choice". The other thing to be aware of is that it is always the Landlord that is responsible, do not engage with agents or be fobbed off. I had an agent try to run rings around a friend of mine, they would not return deposit, tried to suggest that my friend had to pay fees etc etc. We got 100% of the money back because the Landlord had his lawyer put pressure on agent to avoid S214 sanctions. Do not give up, this is easy money, it is a material fact that deposit was not protected.
  6. Not sure if this goes under CRA or Data Protection, please move if required. I am working on an EU complaint with some others about what to me seems a breach of the data protection act or at least article 8 of the human right act regarding privacy rights. I have obtained company documents from a CRA (meant for their clients) that offer customers the opportunity to join what I will call a "club", when they join they agree to provide the data on their customers including monthly payments and an update of their address. In return they get some free access (depending on how much info they share) to CRA system. CRA then use that data to update alerts to debt collectors, information brokers and other clients. My initial concern about this was about PURPOSE, the monthly payments are NOT credit payments, but for a broadband service (with 4 million customers), they even provide this customer information if the client prepays a year upfront. If the purpose of the CRA is about CREDIT then it seems entirely WRONG to pass on this information. If it was an energy company I would have a problem if the client were paying on presentation of the bill but tolerate it if the client added an outstanding bill to a monthly payment system which is in effect credit. My next concern was that the broadband company provided no meaningful way for the customer to opt out of having their data shared, the only reference in the terms provided at the point of sale was that a customer may have an address check. There is a page on their website that says they share your data with CRA, it is very much a take it or leave it comment saying we do this for your own good. If this is taken to it's logical conclusion McDonalds could share that you bought a burger, Petrol stations could share your purchasing location and so on. I think we all should have a reasonable expectation of privacy that when trading with a company as a private individual. I had a chat with a lowly member of staff at the ICO and they suggested that the CRA's are given carte blanche by the ICO and that we have to "account for ourselves", my response was that we do IF we decide to participate in taking credit but not if we do not take credit. They suggested that I might want to complain to the EU commissioners or I could complain to them first but they have a history of not going near CRA's. SHOULD WE BE ENTITLED TO OPT OUT OF THE CREDIT REFERENCE SYSTEM OR AT LEAST CONTROL WHAT IS SHARED? It would seem that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act thinks we should! It talks about a PRIVATE LIFE... The concept of a right to a private life encompasses the importance of personal dignity and AUTONOMY and the interaction a person has with others, both in private or in public. The right to personal autonomy and physical and psychological integrity, respect for private and confidential information, particularly the storing and sharing of such information Respect for privacy when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the right to control the dissemination of information about one’s private life. It seems to me there is no autonomy (self-government) afforded to the consumer with regard to the storing and sharing of their information by these credit reference agencies. Especially for those that do not even take credit. I think WHO I TRADE WITH and HOW MUCH I PAY it is a very private thing, especially if I am not given a MEANINGFUL way to opt out and to me that means a tick box where I say “NO YOU MAY NOT SHARE MY DATA WITH ANYONE WITHOUT MY EXPRESS WRITTEN PER OCCASION PERMISSION.” I think this "club" should be totally illegal, it amounts to a data swap. It seems to me that the ICO themselves by not enforcing this are in Breach of Article 8 as well as both the company providing the information and the CRA sharing the information. I would be very grateful for comment from the members of this forum and any advice they may wish to provide.
  7. I have seen conflicting posts on this site, so I thought I would ask for some clarification. One person in a thread said "you are advised not let bailiffs into your home" Another talked about there being an offence of obstruction to peaceable entry. My understanding is that you are best to never let them in because once you let them in they can come in whenever they want. I also understand that they are no longer allowed to make entry via an open window but can via an open door, including pushing a door you have opened. Can someone clarify whether I can simply not engage them, not open the door, not talk to them etc. I gather that they can take a car they think I own, I drive a 20 year old car registered in Belgium, so unlikely they could prove was mine.
  8. I think it is disgusting that they are making money from a TV programme depicting the misery they put on people. I can totally understand how this lady felt, when I had the threat of a bailiff I decided a solid chest of drawers wedged between door and wall. for a three week period As it happened they did not come My usual tactic to not engage, do not answer door, block their phone numbers and make sure they know I have mental health issues.
  9. According to the page below the liability order is a rubber stampted list of names, they do not even have to ask you for the money before passing to bailiffs. The debt is not covered by the 6 year statute of limitations So the only hope you have is political pressure as suggested or a judicial review which will cost you more than the debt. [Commercial link removed]
  10. I disagree, you are entitled to all data (computer and paper) held about you that can be LINKED TO personal data, so if you call a radio station and give them your phone number and they store that in a record that says "this guy is a racist" they have to provide you with that complete record. I have even obtained "related" data, that is data held in one table that in held in a relational database where there is a common key field. The example would be Tesco, they may have your name, address and phone number in table a and the key field might be ABC124, then in the clubcard table there may be records where ABC124 is listed but not your name etc, still because it can be accessed and related to you, then you are entitled to it. If one followed your login all they would tell us is our name and address etc. Once you know what the data says you can make requests about it. Another example is your credit record, once you provide your name and address they will provide you what data they have RELATED to you.
  11. I would check your tenancy agreement, chances are there is a clause saying you are responsible for all utility bills and they reserve right to pass your details on. These people are used to dealing with people with sawdust between their ears. I would never agree to my information being shared in this way In fact the first thing I do is change the name on utility bills to a 3rd party, I pay the bills but it is my way of controlling data.
×
×
  • Create New...