Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. You could try making a data protection complaint - say they are processing your data without your consent, or that it is inaccurate, or both. It's generally a quicker way. Threaten a court injunction. Some limited information here or Google it. Don't hold your breath, though. I made a data protection complaint to them and they sent me a proper copy of the signed agreement! If they don't have it, though, I've got a few DCAs off my case with this method as it forces them to prove it, or stop reporting. Normally they write it off (as well as removing credit file entries).
  2. Sorry, I assumed you knew. It's Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes the RK liable for a "relevant charge" (includes contract charge or damages for trespass or tort as defined in the schedule) if they can't identify the driver and serve a relevant notice on the keeper. After 28 days the keeper then becomes legally liable for the charge specified in the notice. As such, they no longer have to prove who the driver was (so in the past, if you were RK and got the letter and weren't driving, you could say nothing). Now the risk they have the wrong person is no longer there, so can pursue the RK regardless. They still have to justify the charge or damages, I would imagine.
  3. RK is now liable. Granted, they would still have to prove the charge is not a penalty and so on but no longer any need to prove contract with driver so should be a walk in the park in court (in the absence of a good defence).
  4. It depends. If it relates to an account you had, and as part of that agreement they could assign their rights to someone else (99% of agreements) then the right to search your files would have passed to them. See here "Your permission is normally given in the credit agreement, where certain terms will state that you agree they will provide information about the running of your account to credit reference agencies. This agreement is also transferable, so if they sell the debt on to a debt collector (or ‘factor’) then those rights pass to them." If you don't think there is an agreement, or you think they did not have transferrable rights (unlikely if there was an agreement) then you can make a complaint under the Data Protection Act. I've done that and successfully had linked addresses removed.
  5. Lots of things to defend on with Andrew Hart. He WILL turn up at court personally. Don't be intimidated. Unfair relationship under s140A Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) and request remedy under s140B; it is unfair because: charges ridiculous and not representative of his true costs (therefore penalty), harrassment, excessive interest. Plus s5 UTCCR 1999 - and require to prove costs Each and every one of the charges is a "default sum". You will get a long list of charges (e.g. £5 for a text message). Each and every one of those is a default sum (defined s187A CCA74) and therefore every time one is charged a Notice of Default Sums per s86E CCA74 must be served in writing, which I'll bet you now it hasn't, and therefore the ENTIRE AGREEMENT IS UNENFORCEABLE BY LAW under s86E(5) CCA74. I think this is the easiest one to get it struck out. If any interest is claimed on Default Sums, this is not allowable (s86F CCA74).
  6. Good luck. I hope you get it - I had one at Newcastle, you take off and land on the main airport runway, great experience.
  7. Trading standards are the people to contact, local to the company concerned. As far as I can see, an expiry date is fine. However, retaining the sums paid after the expiry date is not. An expiry date may be put on to protect them from you using it in (say) 10 years when it might cost them £800 for the lesson but you only every paid £200. That's fine. But if they include an expiry date, and you don't use it before the expiry date, to then refuse to refund you the money paid is surely unlawful, unless they can demonstrate they have incurred (in this case) £200 in costs. You could sue them (in small claims) for your £200 back (well, your dad can as he bought it) citing an unfair contract term. It is correct that no-one seems to have tested this yet. If I get some time and spare cash, I might give it a go!!
  8. So you say they took £54, but it should have been £119? How are you out of pocket? Have you paid both amounts (total £173)?
  9. They can't do that - assisted blonde is wrong. Ask them for a new voucher or a refund to your father. The voucher expiry date is an unfair contract term and is not enforceable unless it entitles you to a refund if not used within the period. This is explained in page 20 of the second link that rebel11 posted in post #11 (the OFT document). They can only retain a fair estimate of their costs. Basically: Voucher expiry and refund if not used (less very small admin fee) = legal Voucher expiry with no refund = unlawful (unfair contract term) Ask them for a refund (your father may have to ask for this as he bought it). Do not give up. They are wrong.
  10. Any update? If the phone was/is stolen you are entitled to a full refund, without condition, under the Sale of Goods Act. You may need to get police involved though (but really Cash Converters should do that themselves). Have you been in to see them? This can't be the first time and I would assume they have a mechanism for dealing with it.
  11. I suspect though that CPA has not been given, but used nonetheless, hence the difficulty getting money back from the bank retrospectively. And therefore if people do not know it exists, they won't be cancelling it until it is too late and has been used. This is why I think it is interesting to know if LS do indeed ask for Continuous Payment Authority at loan inception.
  12. Only the Tesco staff have committed a crime here. There was no intent on your part and that is obvious so you have not committed an offence. They however have committed the offence of false imprisonment (if they would not let you leave and/or call your husband) and if they touched you then possibly common assault. However to pursue it would be an uphill battle as the police would probably show little interest and it would only add stress. As others have said, probably best left, but rest assured you did no wrong in the eyes of the law but they did.
  13. Yes, but you have to give card details to get the loan in the first place. They can then, even if you subsequently cancel the card, set up a Continuous Payment Authority and take money whether you have it in your account or not. It seems on this occasion LS has gone back a while later and, instead of taking money as a normal transaction, has put it through as a CPA which will go through on a cancelled card (for the convenience of we consumers according to Visa).
  14. Just read this thread and I am utterly amazed that no-one has picked up on the fact that Lending Stream are clearly using Visa continuous payment authority to take payments. These will go through on cancelled cards, and even if there are no available funds. Well publicised due to the difficulty in stopping them for unauthorised payments (i.e. you can't). Lloyds TSB uses Visa Debit. Beware using Visa Debit in these circumstances. What would be interesting is if LS ask customers for continuous payment authority when card details are first entered. If not, we can get them in serious trouble and they should be reported to Visa.
  15. Oh, I know, I was just pondering the idea that the date of offence might be the same day the car got "written off", if you know what I mean.
  • Create New...