Showing results for tags 'companies'.
-
3053548.thumb.jpg.6ea05a752ac6bbf38ae4e7be9676053a.jpg)
Over the past 2-3 years I have reported on this forum about the risks that debtors face when taking 'legal advice' from the internet and in being encouraged by the relevant sites to issue proceedings against a bailiff company/and or a local authority. In order to warn debtors of the dangers involved I have provided details of the cases together with copies of the Judgments (when available). I cannot stress the importance of this information given that debtors need to be fully aware that if a claim is instigated against either the company (either by way of an Interpleader, Injunction or Small Claims action) or against the individual bailiff (by way of an EAC2 Complaint) that the enforcement company will always ensure that they provide a solicitor (and many times a Barrister) to represent them at a hearing. So far, that have been no reported cases of a debtor winning a court action. Instead, there are many cases where significant cost order have been imposed against debtors. Unfortunately, yesterday it was being reported that yet ANOTHER two legal legal cases had failed in court and in both cases, the individuals (a lady and a gentleman) had been encouraged to pursue hopeless legal cases by a highly unqualified individual with an utterly appalling history of court failures. -
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/65567/best-car-insurance-companies-2013 I'll add my own experiences with swiftcover through and beyond this period start 2013 - start 2015 It was initially very difficult to contact them if you had doubts or problems with 'self management' at the start, but by the end of my time with them, the email contact had improved massively and the responses were good rather than just a response referring you to the premium rate number as it was at the start. The self management online changing of features/cars was effective and penalty/charge free and gave no shocking increases in charges as a result, and in one of the cases resulted in a reduced premium with the difference speedily paid back into my account. I did not need to make any claim, so cannot comment on that side of their service. I left due to increases in basic renewal premiums/cost, parhaps due to the increased cost in customer service. No issues at all with leaving. and the 17 years NC was on the renewal offer and confirmation available for download from myspace on swiftcover. They also apparently confirm to other companies on request - per Hastings Direct.
-
Of course the private parking industry is really just a type of extraordinary rendition. In the same way that legitimate governments which are not prepared to get involved in torture or other unsavoury practices against people who they suspect of having committed crimes, but instead have them whisked off to countries which are far less scrupulous, the big retail names such as Asda, Lidl, Aldi, Morrisons, Tesco and the rest prefer not to get their hands dirty with the business of inflicting punishments on their ordinary everyday customers for minor infractions such as overstaying five minutes or 10 minutes in a car park for whatever reason so instead they get the private parking industry to do the work for them. The private parking companies are in the business of being hated. They're not bothered about their reputation. Their job is apparently to wage the proxy war on the ordinary customers of the big retail brands and at the same time to keep their big retail clients out of the picture so that the reputations and the goodwill of those big retail clients don't get dragged into the mud. If you have a look at this private parking forum, you will see that the name of the retailer who owns the car park is scarcely ever mentioned – pretty well never. Everything is focused on the private parking company and of course that means that there simply doing their job rather well. However, it has come to our notice that some of the retail names are starting to become a little troubled about possible damage to their reputation. If the victims of private parking companies were more prepared to focus on the retail brand behind the car parking facility as well as the private parking company which is operating on their behalf, it might help to force the big retail brands to face up to the damage they are doing to the lives and the economy of the people who are falling foul of Draconian parking measures. We understand that some of the retail brands are very receptive when their customers appealed to them directly to intervene in the levying of a parking fine by one of the parking management companies. Names which have cropped up in various conversations have included Lidl and also Morrisons. However, it is very likely that the others also do not want trouble and we feel that if you have become the victim of some parking fine which has been levied as a result of some insignificant infraction of some alleged contractual terms and conditions, that it would be worth your while writing to the supermarket or retailer concerned – at their trading address (meaning at the car park address) with a copy also to the head office complaining about what has happened and asking for them to intervene and to have a parking fine cancelled. We think that it is very important not to let the big retail brand clients benefit any more from the extraordinary rendition trick with their reputations are preserved even though at the end of the day, it is they who have decided to employ the private parking company. If you have received a parking ticket then you should write to the retailer both that they local branch as well as the head office -
My partner made a claim for missold PPI to several companies in 2011. All of the companies paid up apart from Mint which went to the Ombudsman. He heard nothing further from them until early this year when he received a letter telling him that they had made a payment of £1336 which had been paid off the balance remaining on the credit card account meaning he would not receive any actual cash payment. He queried this and it was referred back to the Ombudsman. He has now been told that this is their final offer and the Ombudsman feels it is fair. Due to the fact that there were a lot of companies involved and he had defaulted on some of the accounts he used a claims company (!) and they have sent him an invoice for £399 for their fee, even though he has not actually received any money, leaving him out of pocket, he queried the fee but was told that he had to pay it. I am posting this as a further warning to people to avoid these companies as you advise on your site. DO NOT USE THESE COMPANIES THEY ONLY WANT YOUR MONEY! -
Hi guys, firstly sorry if this is the wrong section but im a bit lost! I have been attempting to deal with my defaults on my own but seem to continuously hit brick walls so i was hoping for some help. I have some large defaults on my credit file. A company called Mkdp LLP currently own them according to my file. One is an HSBC credit card for a little over £5k, this appears twice. Once for HSBC and then again for Mkdp in a slightly higher amount which i assume is due to the addition of their fees. To me it seems obvious that one or the other of these should be removed as they refer to the same original debt? The HSBC record shows agreement date in 2003 and a default date in May 2011. The Mkdp record shows the same original date of agreement but lists the default as in October 2011. The next debt was originally a Barclaycard which I owed just under £8k to when I defaulted. The record shows that the agreement date was February 2005 and the default was November 2011. It states the original balance was for £11,905. Much much more than I owed prior to defaulting. The final thing on my file is for £1513. It is for a bank account but im unsure if its HSBC or Santander as I had trouble with both back then. It shows an agreement date of April 2007 and default date of January 2012. I have had many letters from Mkdp and other DCA's regarding these amounts over the years. I attempted to have HSBC either take the debt back or remove their default to no avail. I also pointed out to Mkdp that they could not provide me with the correct notices for assignment of the debts but to be quite honest I gave up after a while. I just thought if i ignored it for long enough they would all become statute barred. I have today received a letter from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited (Ex HSBC) regarding the fact that they are collecting a debt of £5968.70 (the exact amount of the Mkdp debt) stating they have bought the debt rights title interest etc from Mkdp. So i guess my question is how do I get the double entry on my file removed. Second question how do I go about dealing with them or do I just tell them the debts are statute barred and ignore them for another few months? Thanks a lot for any help you guys can provide -
hi, any advice on clarifying a small matter would be helpful. we bought a bed for our son from an online store. the bed was hardly used as was in spare room just before the one year warranty it broke. they sent him a part to fix it but it broke again, same fault as before . he got in touch with the retailer and after some back and fourth they have said not their problem and have given us the manufacturers details. are they right or should the retailer sort this out as we believe the bed is not fit for purpose any advice would be appreciated.
-
A friend of mine has recently bought a used car for 7500 pounds for his company from a used car dealer. 9 days after collecting the car it broke down and has been diagnosed as having head gasket failure, the dealer took the car back and appeared as if he was going to sort it but now has given my friend a estimate of 700 pounds to repair the vehicle. Can anyone advise on what rights my friend has as he bought it in his company name is he high and dry or does he have some possible route for getting the dealer to sort it. Thanks -
Are secured loans all bad? I am currently on a DMP with Payplan end date 2020 (dependent on charges & int) and am looking into ways of clearing this quicker. I have posted on the DMP forum and am currently looking into sending out CCA requests but have also been looking into secured loans. If I can borrow a lump sump I can try and offer full and final settlements to my creditors this will reduce the debts and I will have a definate end date. My main issue with secured loans (apart from the obvious being secured on my home) is the interest rate, are there any good companies out there that offer fixed rates and can be trusted! Many Thanks (be nice lol) -
just wanted to give a shout out to Mr Lender and Swift Sterling ive quite a few debts and rather than going pop im trying my hand at sorting a payment plan. both the above companies have frozen my debt and to reduced payments, BRILLIANT and a massive help. i'm awaiting a few replies but these guys did all this with 12 hours of my initial email. SO DON'T GIVE UP HOPE IF YOU TREAT THEM FAIRLY TOO THEY DO TRY TO HELP
-
Afternoon All, Any and all help is appreciated. CH filed for penalties after accounts were not registered on our file (even though accounts were sent) The company accounts are all up to date and we have filed accounts before and after the year in question on time. BACKGROUND A company director posted the accounts in question (on time) to CH via recorded post but to date we are unable to find the certificate of posting. The accounts were never registered on the company register and therefore raked up penalties. Unbeknown we received a Judgement in Default - found out after being refused for a charitable non-geographic phone number. We applied to set-aside the judgement and were successful on the grounds 1) that we did not receive the claim and 2) that we have instances where we have sent documents to CH, they have signed for the documents but our company register was not updated. We have receipts, copies of signed recorded mail certificates and emails form CH. Our accountant is also able to provide a witness statement where he has sent CH documents on our behalf again via recorded post and they also have not been updated to the company register. FAST FORWARD We would like to put our defence forward in a coherent and ligitant manner as far as possible and wondered if there were any standards or rules we could refer to in order to reinforce our defence. Or do we simply state the facts as is? In essence, we will be presenting the following; 1. Accountant has filed information - Information had to be resent via recorded delivery. Postage receipt. 2. Accounts in question was sent by Company Director. - Evidence: Unable to locate postage receipt 3. Other documents sent to CH. Same documents resent 2 further times – due to not being registered on our Company register - Evidence: Postage receipts, Email acknowledgement The arguement seems to boil down to us stating that we sent the accounts in on time and CH stating that we did not. Though it is 'sods law' that we have the before and after postal receipts, we seem to be at pains in locating the receipt for the accounts in question. What we do have, is other receipts and can get a witness statement from our accountant stating that he has also sent in documents and they have not been registered on the company record. REQUEST Support to compile a defence given the information we have. Apologies for the long post, but hopefully it makes sense. Many thanks.
-
It amazes me that Utility Companies treat us with contempt again and again and get away with it again and again. Today’s CAG newsletter “Npower ordered to give energy away for free” or E.On fined £7.75m Sorry, as a newbe I can't post links but everything can be found easily on google District Heat systems only affect a few hundred thousand of us at the moment but that number is expected to grow in to the millions over the next few years. District Heat – a block of flats has one boiler making hot water for all the flats. In theory cleaner and more efficient (cheaper). That hot water is passes through a “heat exchange” in each flat generating hot water for heating and washing Given the utilities companies history it is amazing but the government prefer to leave the companies to self-regulate on the basis that…… actually I have no idea why anyone would think that is a good idea So they have. There is an organisation called "The Heat Trust" which is managed by the, ironically named, Heat Customer Protection Ltd. They have come up with this wicked wheeze known as the “Heat Cost Comparator” upon which prices appear to based, it includes 1. How much it would cost if it were gas 2. How much the standing charge would be if you had a different supply 3. How much it would cost to service your gas boiler 4. How much it would cost to replace your gas boiler Add them together and that is how much you should pay for your heat Maybe it is me but I think 1. The price should be based on how much it costs to produce the heat not on how much gas costs 2. Our standing charge should be based on our costs not someone else’s 3. We don’t have a boiler and our heat exchanger is very low maintenance 4. The heat exchanger is expected to last a lot longer than a gas boiler and then be cheaper to replace This system has been, according to The Heat Trust, “reviewed and approved” by Which? and the Citizens Advice Bureau. I asked Which? and the CAB and they both refused to confirm or deny if they had “reviewed and approved”….. ummmmmm I smell a fish ARUP wrote a very interesting report which says that if this is the correct method then we are only being charged twice as much as we should be, page 8 says a 2 bedroom flat which should be about £350 a year is actually closer to £700 in the East London scheme In the Which? report Turning Up The Heat – Getting a Fair Deal for District Heating Users. March 2015. It was written “the lack of consumer protection had left many feeling vulnerable: It seems to be done with a certain amount of protectionism towards the companies and nothing for the consumer” The report goes on about how much it should cost. To give you an idea I moved in to my 3 bedroom flat on the 1st Dec 2014. By the end of June my Heat Bill has been £832, annualise that is £1,250. I keep writing to my MP Matthew Pennycook – that does me no good at all On the upside I have got the ASA to investigate E.On for their claim that District Heat is no more expensive than Gas. On the 7th July I received a letter from the ASA apologising for the delay “We have received a response from E.On, which we have assessed. We may need to go back to them for some further clarification” – yea I can’t get a straight answer from them either And I do have the Financial Ombudsman investigating them as well because the maintenance, repair and replacement is an assurance policy which should be regulated. E.On have bundled it in to the standing charge so it is not regulated. If E.On pull out of the market I lose my premiums. OFGEM will not look into it because their remit is Gas and Electricity and I am buying HEAT Maddest one yet, the Ombudsman for Energy will not look in to it because E.On have not signed up for their services. Ahhhhh???? So, the million dollar question. Why don’t I change provider? I can’t E.On have a monopoly! This is going to happen to loads more people. write to your MP. We need regulation NOW -
Prior to taking over the regulation of consumer credit in April 2014 we undertook extensive work to understand this market. The results of this indicated that debt management was one of the highest risk activities. We wanted to improve the outcomes for customers and therefore began thematic work which assessed the quality of advice provided by debt management firms. In September 2014, our other supervisory work in the debt management sector demonstrated significant non-compliance with our consumer credit rules. Following a series of targeted visits to firms, we advised that many debt management firms needed to ‘raise their game’. Our thematic review assesses the level of compliance with our existing rules – most of which are based on the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) former Debt Management Guidance. It does not establish any new standards or expectations. http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/thematic-reviews/tr15-8 It is very good to see that the 'free' services offered were substantially better than the fee charging ones. It is only 40 pages long and is quite easy to read.
-
In line with the government’s commitment to free data, Companies House is pleased to announce that all public digital data held on the UK register of companies is now accessible free of charge, on its new public beta search service. This provides access to over 170 million digital records on companies and directors including financial accounts, company filings and details on directors and secretaries throughout the life of the company. Free access to the data is available both through a web service and an application program interface (API), enabling both consumers and technology providers to access real time updates on companies. You can try the new service here.
-
I happened across this today. http://tinyurl.com/nf86m22 -
Hello Please, can you anyone tell me if this postal address covers all Credit Card companies that supply cards? - Card Services Pitreavie Business Park Dunfermline Fife KY99 4BS I'm trying to get hold Card Services telephone numbers for each of the companies below. Natwest Sainsburysbank Barclaycard Tescobank Many Thanks
-
With a population of just over 65,000 - it has been identified that there 60 legal loan sharks (PDLs) in Boston, Lincolnshire 1083 people per PDL. Debt counsellors in Boston are worried that the regulation of Pay Day Loan companies will see an increase of the illegal/unlicensed loan shark. -
Why are energy companies levying standing charges to domestic customers? 50 years ago only commercial and industrial premises where charged standing charges. So why the explosion in the domestic market? is this a hidden tax? Why do Companies such as npower and or Ebico offer no standing charge tariffs? What are these standing charges for? Most Energy companies would have you believe its to do with maintenance charges. But my experience of all energy companies is they do not carry out maintenance and certainly meter operators never do mainatainace on meters as most meters are inaccurate most of the time. Can anyone provide a clear explanation to this charge? -
http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-31545417 If the forthcoming Court of Appeal case goes against the Bounty Hunting industry then people should start getting their claims in fast. If the Bounty Hunters are obliged to start refunding all of their victims, then they won't have enough money to do it. The result could be that they start closing themselves down pre-emptively. People should consider issuing small claims for refunds without hanging around too long
-
I was tempted to use 'discriminate against' in the thread title but thought that may have been a bit too strong. Ok, so my mum is currently on a trip to Dubai with my dad (He's already over there for work) and so we went to take out a travel insurance policy. She's done this trip (alone and with me) several times in the past few years so we've got a good bit of experience with buying Travel Insurance online, usually from the Post Office, and just printing out documentation at home within minutes. All nice and simple. So this year we sat down (She's not at all IT-savvy, so it's down to good old Son who works in IT to do something so 'complicated' for her ) and went to go through the process as usual, but this year there was something a bit different about the questions to answer/fill in, with more details on the medical side being requested. In the past there's never been any medical questions when buying travel insurance beyond the "pre-existing conditions wont be covered" type stuff. Now, unfortunately my mum was diagnosed with Breast Cancer nearly 6 years ago. Fortunately it was caught very early and through a combination of minor radiotherapy and drug treatments, she made a complete recovery and was given her all clear last December. Previously this has never been applicable to the questions that we've been asked when buying Travel Insurance online, but the new questions, or at least the new wording of the questions, meant that it did seem to fall into the 'relevant' bracket now, so when the following question came up, Along with. We had to click Yes, wanting to give an honest declaration that she had been for treatment, but that she was now all clear and no longer undergoing any treatment. On clicking Yes we were asked what the condition was, and Breast Cancer was an option. We were then given the following questions, Available answers were, "No", "Yes - spread to lymph nodes in armpit only" and "Yes - spread to other parts of the body". Fortunately, our answer was "No". "Under 2 years" "2-3 Years" "3-5 years" "5-8 years" "8-10 years" "More than 10 years" Our answer was "5-8 years" "Yes" "No" "Still waiting for surgery to remove the cancer" Now on this one, we selected "No", as there was never any surgery. However I'm assuming here that Chemotherapy and medication don't classify as 'surgery' as there wasn't what I could consider a surgical procedure involved. For this one we selected the option of 1 to 2 visits in the last 12 months, the last one being her final check last year before getting her all clear. Well, no she's not. Treatment is complete, but there was no option for that at all. There were only options for Chemotherapy, Surger, Radiotherapy, Tablet treatment, Other Treatment or No. So we had to pick no. So as you can see, there were absolutely no options to say "I did have cancer, but it was treated completely successfully without the need for surgical removal". So we put in those details, and then got prompted that there were no policies available based on the information. Hm, odd. So next we tried a comparison site, thinking that might be a bit better. We ended up on Moneysupermarket after prompting that there was a previous cancer case involved were directed to their "Pre-existing condition" quote site. Sounded good, something a bit more specialist. Went through that only to be prompted with word for word the same questions and answers. Obviously we put in the same information....and got the same results. No policies available. In the end, she had to phone up her bank and managed to get a quote over the phone since she could actually explain the cancer was now gone and she'd received her all clear. But why not have an option for people who have been successfully treated for Cancer? Why did we have to go through all that? Are insurance companies just of the opinion that once you've had cancer, you always have cancer? -
Hoping to go away a few times this year and am looking at travel insurance. I've been given quotes that range from £30-£100 ish. But is there really that much difference between the insurance that each company offers? I've had a look on compare the market and put my details in to see what comes up. I am aware that some compaies won't come up on comparison websites. -
In the middle of April last year my car was hit while on display at a car meet. The guy who drove into my car was sorry and admitted full liability. The next day I rang the local main dealer and asked to be put through to the body repair department. I explained what had happened and was told that someone would contact me to sort everything out. Within the hour I recevied a call from what I assumed was the garage. The chap on the end of the phone took some details of my car asked if it was roadworthy,which it was not. He said that I would have a replacement hire car at my home address the next day. The following day a car was delivered.That evening I sat down and read some of the paperwork left with the car.This car was £500 per day to hire!!!! I was unable to contact anyone over the next four days due to Easter holidays. On the Tuesday I rang the guy who hit me insurance company and told them about this car and the cost of it. I then explained to them that I was able to source a similar standard of car from a garage in the village I live in for £125 per day.The insurance company agreed to this and confirmed this in an email. I cancelled the first hire car and started to hire the second. At the end of July I was doing a charity event with my make of car for a childrens hopice. I rang the insurance company and explained the situation. They supplied me with a hire car of the same make and model for that weekend,they also rembursed most of what I had paid out on car hire up to that date. It took their assessors three months to come and look at my car. It was agreed that a new nosecone was required. I have been paying out for the hire car for the last five months[a now eye watering amount of money]. I have been in contact with the insurance company recently regarding payment of my costs and they have started to fob me off with excuses.One of them being that my car is fit to drive!!!! The car is still in the same unroadworthy state as it was before.[part of the damage to the nosecone has made it impossible to fix the indicator or sidelight to the car] They even mentioned could I try sticky tape to fix it on!!!!! The car is quite bespoke and I am lead to belive by the bodyshop that we are on the final leg in regard to obtaining the parts. My question is what can I do about recovering my money????? Your thoughts and sugestions will be greatly appreciated!! Sorry for the long story and spelling mistakes
-
Hi - been trying to work this out in my head but wonder if anyone has any ideas about this situation of mine, thanks. I have an interest only mortgage - the arrears I previously had were shown on the statements and increased the outstanding balance, which I understand. The new balance then attracted more interest. Later the lender took me to court and had the arrears added to the security, increasing the balance again. Shortly after that they capitalised the arrears - so - assume the balance went up again. Also added all their legal fees. Does this mean that there has been a double recovery of interest then?
-
I was quite disturbed this morning when I wondered whether certain Insurance Companies are [problem]ming the public via computer systems which ask you to pay more money than you should be. I am a landlord and insured my first house in early July via Bedford Insurance and a company 'e-unlimited'. I paid £315.13 for the whole year. I was told that when occupied this would fall to £178.13. Due to extensive renovation, a tenant walked into my house on Wednesday ie. exactly 5 months from the date of insurance cover. I contacted 'Bedford Insurance' and after having done some basic sums beforehand was surprised to discover that the money due back to me was less than I expected. I spoke to two insurance brokers who immediately got defensive when I questioned this figure stating they were simply doing what the computer had told them. Given there was a discrepancy of £7.28 in my favour, I asked whether I could speak to a manager. Credit to the manager, he did phone me back this morning, much to my surprise, and he bothered to go through the sums in detail with me. He suggested that insurance quotes go up and down and therefore wondered whether the £178.13 quoted to me in early July was now higher. On checking, and much to his embarrassment, it was a little lower! He agreed with my sums and then, almost flippantly, said he would offer an additional £10 on to the quote the computer gave me the previous day. This leads to a disturbing question: How many people are paying more than they should be because the computer has got the sums wrong? Or more conspiratorially, are some companies purposefully manipulating the computer system to achieve financial figures very much more in their favour? -
There is no date on this, so I don't know how long the information has been available.. http://www.which.co.uk/money/credit-cards-and-loans/guides/how-to-deal-with-debt/debt-management-companies-why-to-avoid-them/
-
I have a problem and went out of the country for a while, on my return I have my company with a proposal of strike off flag, so as i wanted to keep operating with the company I called Companies house and asked what do I need to do. They reply this and I am scared, what are my options please? I still have time to fix this? --------------------------------------------------------------------- I can confirm that the following documents are outstanding: Accounts for year ended 31/07/2013. Annual Return (Form AR01) for period ending 15/07/2014. As the company is required to remain on the register, the proposed strike off action has been discontinued. Failure to file accounts and annual returns within the statutory times allowed is a criminal offence and due to the seriousness of the defaults, we are commencing prosecution action against the directors immediately. Conviction for these offences will result in a criminal record and a fine of up to £5,000 for each document not delivered on time. As these accounts are already late, a civil late filing penalty will automatically be incurred when they are received and accepted at Companies House. The amount of the penalty increases with the length of delay in delivery and is separate to any criminal proceeding being considered against the directors. Failure to comply with the filing requirements of the 2006 Companies Act in consecutive years will result in the penalty being doubled for the current year’s accounts. You may be able to deliver your annual return and certain types of accounts online via our Web Filing service, which has in-built checks to ensure that you get it right first time. Our web-site www.companieshouse.gov.uk gives information on this along with a full range of guidance booklets and forms. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks a lot.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS