Jump to content

hillards

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    2,395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by hillards

  1. August 21st: Had another letter full of bluster from Overdales on behalf of Lowells. They say our outstanding balance will start to accrue an interest charge of 8% per month... As already stated, they can't do this and it's just bluster on their part. Not heard anything from the court, and don't expect to.
  2. I sort of worked that out. At present, the only circumstances that would happen are winning the lottery, and then we could pay them off, or death, and we'd not be bothered about it.
  3. We've only that paragraph on the Land Registry. We knew there was an old CCJ, but this is the first we've known of the charge so we don't have any other details. It is a married (relevant) persons ccj on a single owners property. She bought her ex. out, but I'm not named on anything other than phone bills. Goes back to Child Support Agency issues, since cleared.
  4. But they can't do anything with it until the property is sold...
  5. As was said before, until we hear from the court... After all this time, but they're still trying it on.
  6. Checked with the Land Registry, there's an entry (screenshot attached) which goes back to 2011, but does quote the same claim number? Image2.pdf
  7. I think I've blanked anything like that out. Claim number, balance, address, name etc. dk100uk has said earlier that they'd have to apply to the court to enforce this, and we've heard nothing. I knew there was something about them adding interest that smelled funny to me. As said earlier, unless we hear from the court...
  8. Or so I thought... Just had the attached arrive. On it's own, had nothing from the court or Lowells about this, which makes me suspect bluster rather than truth. I'm sure we would have heard something if this really was being taken to the court, after all this time. If a charging order was obtained then they have no means of altering any interest being added, so the claim that they'll not charge anything is what leads me to suspect BS on their part... overdales-jun23.pdf
  9. Only got a letter from Overdales to say they are dealing with it now. Cannot remember when the CCJ was obtained. Sometime between 2010 and 2014. Was by Cohen if my records are correct. It's not my credit file, it's the missus. She didn't want to stir anything up. There is only 1 CCJ. Everything else is well over 6 years. Will talk to her. I get the job of sorting her batsh1t out.
  10. Oh heck, we were dealing with 4 cases with GE Capital/Santander. Seems Drydens have written to say one was cleared, but now we have no less than 3 letters that deal with the case that had a CCJ. I've found files on an old computer that relate. Today we've had one from Hoist to say they've transferred it to Lowells. One from Lowells to say it's been passed to Overdales Legal. One from Overdales Solicitors who've 'been instructed to act for Hoist. - going round in circles? My files are for a claim to Santander. The documents relate to a FOS form re. PPI that was never answered, par for the course with Santander. I also have a letter to Cohens from May 2010, saying the account was put in dispute in November 2009, but again Santander failed to answer. I looks like they got a CCJ some time later, as detailed in the first post of this thread. As nobody has bothered to make any collection on this, bar the occasional reminder letter, I take it they'll have a job on trying to go back to the courts. Then again, it does say there's a CCJ this time. I'm reluctant to look at a credit reference as that opened up a bag of worms last time. We're just sitting tight and will file any more letters.
  11. Sorry, she'd binned the letter as it's settled. Bin's been emptied since...
  12. We have no idea if it's the same account, there were 4 claims for PPI v Santander, none of which were paid. They claimed they were over the limit of six years if I remember right. We've had nothing from the PPI claims company either, since their letter saying they were pursuing court action - months ago.
  13. Update in March 2023! A letter came today from DrydensFairfax, saying the case had been paid off and they would inform the court the matter is settled Dunno what that is about, but happy with that. In a related matter, a PPI chasing firm took some details from my wife ages ago, last we heard was that it was being taken to court v Santander. Not heard from them in months, but may have triggered this settlement?
  14. Thanks for responding. I had a feeling we would not have any recourse against what can only be termed discrimination. There's no way she is going to get a credit card so will have to use a local firm who are only too happy to accept sight of her council tax bill and driving license, but costs 50% more. Thankfully it's a rare occasion she needs to hire, in this case it was due to a breakdown.
  15. Just want to check in and see if there is anything further that can be done. In mid February our car broke down, clutch went. So it was taken to the garage and left with them to order the bits and sort out. It meant the wife was without a car for a few days. She works as a home carer and needs a car to get round to her clients. She can't just take the days off as the company she works for is short staffed and it could mean elderly people going without a visit, so no food, medication or whatever. Anyway, she went online and booked a car with Enterprise. This was early on a Friday afternoon and she wanted it for Mon/Tue. They called her later that day, said she had been refused as they had done a search and she didn't have a big enough footprint with GBG ID3 Global, the company they use to verify people. Obviously this was very distressing. They told her she was not on the electoral roll and that she had failed because of this. On checking GBG's site it's correct, our household is opted out of the 'open register'. But she has had a letter from the council to confirm she is on the register. Enterprise don't want to know. We paid our mortgage off last year, she does not have store cards or any sort of credit as we don't want to be in debt as we approach retirement. Enterprise have said they will only hire a car to her if she gets a credit card... She has told them she does not want, or need, a credit card and it would be stupid to get one just to hire a car and get herself into debt that way, even if paid straight off. We've taken this complaint to the CEO, but it got passed back to an area manager who has fobbed us off. She feels discriminated against simply because she does not have credit. The GBG site says that the hire company should have asked for paper documents, but Enterprise say they no longer do this. She went to another company at the time, had to pay a lot more as they only had bigger cars, yet they accepted seeing her council tax bill and driving license quite happily. Needless to say, Enterprise have lost a customer. She had hired from them before with no problem and the attitude of the branch staff alone has put her off. As far as we can tell, GBG's data is probably correct so no need to SAR to see what they have on file if anything. It's Enterprise's policy to take this as the be all and end all that has caused all the upset. Is there anything we can do to redress this?
  16. So we sit tight now until we hear from Restons, one way or the other? They filed a N1 in August, we defended as SB. They've since turned up statements showing payments made up to Jan 2017, so we've lost that defence really. Step-daughter isn't much good at keeping track of things. She didn't realise it was the same thing. She had been paying off an old Beneficial Bank loan, claim was made as HFC, hence confusion. In the meantime, we played 'hunt the paperwork' by way of CCA request and a SAR to the bank. Both have complied. Not sure here what will happen now. Cabot & Restons have both suggested we withdraw the defence. As it's only a suggestion we've not taken them up on that.
  17. Attached is a PDF of the 8 page agreement plus the three letters they sent. Account numbers and identifiable information plus signatures all removed. cabot-to-CAG.pdf
  18. Ah, you want to see... I need to get paperwork from step-daughter and scan then. Obviously removing any personal details and account numbers. Will ask when I see her next.
  19. Sadly, yes. They have sent copies of the signed agreement. There are 8 pages of it incl T's & C's. Looks to be a file copy of the original, not reconstructed.
  20. Restons last communication was half a tree of paper and suggesting she looks to withdraw her defence as it was now clear who the account had been with and that there were transactions within the last 6 years. This is now visible in the form of the HSBC statements sent by Cabot showing payments were made as recent as Jan 2017. On what grounds are we now defending this? Originally it was that she didn't know what it was about, which bank/lender. They've got her statement, signed by her. She claimed stat barred but they've turned up statements showing payments.
  21. Ref #53 Letter from Cabot arrived. Now claiming 'enforceable' They have sent a copy of the agreement, same as they've supplied before, along with a couple of their letters. A current (Cabot) statement and one showing what legal fees were added by them. They have also managed to get a copy of a statement from HSBC, 6 pages of transactions. They say this now complies with the CCA request and they can obtain a county court judgement - contact Restons to arrange to pay....
  22. The area was left with green tarmac after buses stopped running from there 12 years and I can see on Google street view that it was just double yellows up to last year's images, the latest they have. The council have informed me, via my local councillor, that the bus stop was added quite recently. I have to agree that there is a thick yellow line at the kerb side and the 'bus stop' markings are there. Very difficult to miss in the rain, when parking between other vehicles that were there at the time. My local knowledge of over 20 years in the town was that no buses run down that street these days. I was totally unaware of the disability bus as these services have always stopped on the other side of the road. I will be going to take a good look at the area on Saturday. I will check for any plates showing restrictions etc. I just spoke to the council, and the man who arranged for the bus stop to be put there. There is no traffic order, they have not needed one since a change in regulations back in 2002. The area is defined as a 24/7 clearway bus stop and is marked up as such with the thick yellow markings. However, he has accepted that I may have a point about PSV against a community disability bus and the validity of the stop. He is unaware of any such restriction but will check and get back to me. He says that the reason the bus stop has been (re) created there is that the disability service has grown over the years and the vehicles were causing an obstruction where they had been stopping on the other side of the road. It has been there since September (-ish) 2018. He is also of the opinion that a bus is a vehicle set out as such with 8 or more seats and that there is no definition in the regulations relating to public service vehicles only. My point was that the disability buses are pre-booked, so not a 'public service'.
×
×
  • Create New...