Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'correct'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 59 results

  1. One for the guys who like numbers. This spreadsheet seems to follow the viewable FOS guidelines if you have the info to reconstruct the account. However the 8% part when your account either goes into credit on the reconstructed balance or original balance is not working the same way as I know at least 2 lenders are now calculating redress. By this I mean if the original account was paid down to zero at any time then the PPI and contractual interest is removed from the account and accrues 8% stat interest till settlement. When your account is used again and starts attracting PPI and contractual interest on that PPI, the PPI and interest starts at zero again not the amount that was previously within the account. The reconstructed balance is also set to zero, not a credit figure, and therefore is much higher then if the PPI and interest that had been accrued before the zeroing of the account. This then means any contractual interest award is going to be substantially lower if you have paid off the account at any time during its lifetime. Obviously the banks will say the PPI had been paid off so shouldnt be attracting anything contractually. This I could understand if they had paid the PPI back at the time which of course they didnt. Therefore the balance should be the reconstructed balance which when the account went to zero will actually be a credit balance. This credit balance would have had to be used first before a debit balance starts to accrue. And therefore this difference is down to PPI and not the purchases or cash advances that restarted the account. i.e the original balance would have been much lower and attracted less interest. Would be very interested on anyones views on this. I know the spreadsheet mirrors whats on FOS website but is anyone else aware of this removal of PPI and interest associated with it everytime the original balance goes to zero?
  2. Can those more knowledgeable please confirm my understanding of recent cases... I have received a number of letters now for overstaying a free period of parking and the advice I took from reading this and other forums was to ignore which I have done so far. However 1. With the Parking Eye v Somerfield case...is it correct that the judge has said that the initial or lower charge is acceptable and therefore enforceable should a claim be made at a small claims court but that the higher amount is a penalty and therefore uneforceable.. 2. that the VCS tax tribunal case stated that only the landowner can take out a claim.. Therefore if a parking company has an agreement with the landowner to carry out proceedings then, is the advice still to ignore, How do I find out if the parking company has authority from the landowner
  3. From The Mirror yesterday. Hidden costs: Budget airlines charge up to £160 to correct mistakes on tickets Ryanair will hit you in the pocket if a mistake needs correcting at the airport Budget airlines can end up not being so cheap after all Getty Passengers on budget airlines are being charged up to £160 just to correct spelling mistakes on tickets. Others have to shell out for a whole new ticket if they turn up at the airport with one letter of their name in the wrong place. Ryanair has a £160 admin fee if the mistake needs to be corrected at the airport while Thomson charges from £50 to up to the full cost of the ticket on the day of departure. Experts say it’s *another example of airlines squeezing extra cash out of passengers. Fees *apply when the name on the ticket is different to the name in the passport – even simple variations like Dave and David in the passport. And new brides can be caught out if they book with their married name. Airlines say the passenger lists they provide to authorities have to exactly match names on tickets. So airlines can refuse to allow anyone on board if there is even the slightest difference between the name on a ticket and in a passport. Bob Atkinson of Travelsupermarket.com, which carried out the research, said: “Mistakes can easily happen, so it’s worth taking the extra time to double check.” A Ryanair spokesman said: “The name on the boarding card must match the name on ID with any airline.” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/budget-airlines-charge-up-to-160-1377221
  4. Please forgive me if I have posted this on the wrong page !! Some time ago , I read somewhere on CAG that if you are on full benefits and you are being chased for a debt , the least you could pay would be a £1.00 a week. Is this correct or did I miss something?. And if true , do the people you owe the money to have to accept this amount? Thank you
  5. Morning all. I hope this is the right forum to raise this issue on and apologise if it isn't. I recently got a copy of my credit history and found that Carphone Warehouse have registered two defaults on it dating back to 2007. In 2006 I had a disagreement with them over a new mobile contract and charges which were applied to my account for WAP usage when I'd been assured at the time of signing in store that WAP would, as per the PAYG SIM I had been using up until that point, be free of charge. I contacted their head office whilst in store having been told by the staff there that there was nothing they could do, and was told that the charges stood. In short, I told them they could stick the contract and wrote to them within two weeks to state that I would no longer be servicing either of the contracts held with them but have never had an acknowledgement from them in respect of this. Although I am not entirely sure of the exact date that payments stopped, I know it was at some point in mid 2006. With that in mind, I have sent in a SAR to my bank to get copies of all statements on my accounts so I can pinpoint exactly when payments stopped. Looking at the payment history for these accounts on my credit file, this does not go back as far as 2006 - it starts in 2007 and shows payments being made on time followed by the countdown to the default but I most definitely did not make any payments at this time; as above, they stopped mid 2006. This is also something reflected by the amount of money that is owed according to my history - nearly £500 on one account and nearly £700 on another, when both contracts were 12 month ones for around £25 a month. I have read elsewhere that the date of default is defined by the first date on which a payment is missed rather than the countdown to default shown by way of payment history on your file - does this hold any water at all? My credit record is now all but clean bar these two debts. One default has been registered as December 2007 meaning it will, as things stand, stay on my record until December 2013? Having heard nothing in years, I have also recently had various letters and a flurry of phone calls from DCAs attempting to make contact over these debts, which suggests to me that maybe they are aware that the six year clock is ticking? (I've done nothing response wise other than answer the phone, refuse to confirm who I am, inform them that no-one of that name is connected with the phone number they have called and tell them not to call again... which to be fair, they have not done.) So... I would be really grateful if anyone could shed some light on what the true definition of what would constitute the legal default date given the circumstances above. If, as I suspect, it's from the date the first payment was missed, how do I go about forcing the DCAs and CW to update their records, and are there any consequences for the latter in respect of registering a payment history that is incorrect? Thank you in advance for any assistance and advice you can provide.
  6. This may seem a little basic, but after reading previous threads and sticky's i cannot find what im looking for..... basically I am about to go into battle with a LL that is essentially Janine Butcher and need to do everything by the book so there are no loop holes for her to climb through. I am about to terminate my short-hold periodic tenancy agreement after just over 5 years living in my current address due to my pregnancy (which she does not know about, although i think she or her family members have been in my room without permission so may well do) and the fact her behaviour has been appalling during my tenancy (it is now causing me and my flat mates so much stress we are moving out earlier than we would have done and have done). Thankfully my contract ran from May 07 so I am in theory protected by a deposit protection scheme. However she is an aggressive and erratic woman who likes to use bullying tactics to intimidate her tenants and generally has little respect for their civil rights (i have seen it, and been victim to it several times myself). Hopefully after I have successfully moved out and reclaimed my deposit I will be able to report her to an appropriate body regarding her behaviour and actions which I do not think have been entirely legal (however thats another storey for later maybe). Can anyone advise me a template letter or information which I have to include to her in a letter to terminate my tenancy so I do it correctly. I also wish to include a section challenging her ridiculous attempt at a rent increase that she is demanding with 2 weeks notice (i know she cant do this as its not in compliance with current law but would be grateful to know how to politely put it...) cheers!
  7. Help, My car has been clamped due to an unpaid pcn. Bailiffs are requesting the payment of £427.59 for release of my car. I am unemployed and do not have this. Breakdown of charges are: Parking penalty charge:£70 Charge certificate £35 Debt registration £7 total £112 Bailiffs charges Warrant of execution:£112 letter:£13.4 First visit:£41.66 Second visit:£53.09 Levy £67.40 Enforcement: £114 Vehicle data check: £26 TOTAL £427.59 Are these charges correct? I have offered the council payment of the original fine they do not want to accept my payment, i have also offered a payment plan to the baillifs but they are refusing to accept. I need my car unclamped asap. Thanks
  8. Hi - we currently have two overpayments of around £3000 combined on tax credits, and have now been informed that we have to pay them off as we no longer get any tax credits. I was hoping to ask for some advice, as one of these in particular seems a little bit "iffy" to me… The first overpayment was for the 2008-2009 period. This was a period of upheaval, where I had been made redundant in June 2008. I finally got a new job in Feb 2009, and phoned the tax office to say that I was now earning £35K (this is very clear on the phone recording – I had requested a copy of all our information along with phone calls). The problem with this period was that when I was made redundant, I believe my wife phones them up (can't actually recollect this, and for some reason there's no trace of this call in the call log). Supposedly she gave a low estimate as to my expected income as it didn't take into account my redundancy pay. Whilst I rectified this when I got a job, this resulted in an £2500 overpayment (which has slowly being paid off, and is now down to £1200) – don't think I can really argue this one. The second overpayment was for the 2009-2010 period. It was actually in June 2010 when I was reviewing my documents, that I noticed our child care costs were incorrect. They were still stating we were claiming £50 for our son (when he had finished 09/2008), and we hadn't started claiming £16 for my daughter (who started 03/2009). A bit bad on my part for the oversight – but since we never got any childcare costs in our tax credits, I didn't think it mattered. I phoned up and stated as much, and gave the full details. The operator agreed that it shouldn't change anything much, so I wasn't concerned by it. Then, a little while later, the tax credits were recalculated and we were hit with an overpayment of £2038 (which currently sits at around £1750 left to pay). I was a little shocked to say the least! Our initial dealings with the tax office didn't give a very clear picture, and I ended up just accepting that we would end up paying it off with future tax credits. But now we don't qualify, I really want to check that this is correct! I've phoned them back, and an operator actually explained how it has happened. They said that that for the 2009-2010 period we got the following – best shown on the Feb 2010 revised award notice. This was before I had phoned up with the revised childcare costs, so is the last award notice to show them in the calculations. Incidentally, I got this notice after an amended awards notice came out in Jan 2010. This still had me down as a combined income of £23,501 – not the £35,000 +£3,500 (wife's employment) that I had clearly reported in Feb 2009. Working Tax Credit : Basic £1889.70 2nd adult £1861.50 30-hour element £777.45 -------------------------------------------- Total £4529.65 Income Reduction £4529.65 -------------------------------------------- Amount for this period £0.00 Childcare element of working tax credit Total £2100.80 Income Reduction £2100.80 -------------------------------------------- Amount for this period £0.00 Child Tax Credit : 2 qualifying children £4474.90 Family Elements Basic £547.50 -------------------------------------------- Total £5022.40 Income Reduction £31.13 -------------------------------------------- Amount for this period £4991.27 So at this stage, we're not getting any working tax credits, we're not getting childcare help, and we're not being overpaid. But in June, that all changed with the revised childcare costs. They would take them out of the calculations, and with the tapering, it meant our tax credits should have been around £3000 – so we now owed around £2000. Now my point that I've put to them is that if they had used my actual income that I gave to them in Feb 2009, the extra £15,000 worth of tapering (at 39p to the £), would have resulted in a deduction of £5850 instead of £31.13 (the operator I was speaking to seemed to agree with this logic). Which would mean we would only get the basic tax credit for the 2009-2010 period. We would have got a lot less tax credits, but it means we wouldn't have it all to pay back either. I gave them an accurate income figure, and they say their procedures would make them choose the lower figure of what you earned the year before (£23,500) - regardless of the fact that I was redundant and so not earning for the whole year. Sounds stupidly complicated to me and just asking for trouble - they'll be giving me tax credits for two years based on an income of £23,500 when I'm earning a lot more (so I would get more tax credits in the second year compared to someone else who has always earned £35,000). Okay – my fault for not noticing the childcare costs, but since we've never been paid them, it really didn't seem to matter – and it wouldn't have mattered if they had used my income. So – I'm hoping to ask any of you experts who know more about this than me – is this a worthwhile thing to raise a dispute over, or am I wasting my time? Would appreciate a quick reply – I've got to sort out how to pay back £3000 within the next week or so (thanks to the pleasures of having to wait 40 days just to get all your data back from the tax office!). Thanks, M.
  9. Hi, Could someone please clarify for me when an informal chat about a potential disciplinary issue, ceases to be informal. I have had an 'informal chat' today with my stores' Assistant Manager - something I knew was going to happen today, as she was off Sunday and I was off yesterday - over an issue that I am supposed to have done Friday night, which I was made aware of Saturday morning (although I believe I did not do anything wrong). Also present was another member of staff (someone I don't particularly want being party to this issue) who was there to take notes. I was refused representation as my AM told me this was an informal meeting and I was not entitled to representation. She also told me that a copy of these notes were to be sent to Head Office. I am extremely concerned that this is not correct procedure and that I am being treated incorrectly. Any help or advice with this will be greatly appreciated as I have been worried sick all weekend, and this has done nothing to alleviate that, especially as my AM now tells me that I will be having a disciplinary. Please help.
×
×
  • Create New...