Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'admits'.



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

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 13 results

  1. Hi, I hope I have posted this in the rigjt place. I wonder if anyone can help me. I was served a default notice by Nationwide in December of 2007 for arrears on a personal loan account. I eventually managed to bring the account up to date but in 2011 defaulted again and was served a default notice in July 2013. I have read on other threads that an account can not be served with more than one default notice. Is this correct ? if the account was brought up to date then defaulted again? I have the paperwork for both defaults which state different amounts being owed but for the same account. Also if it is correct that I should only have one default then what should I do to get this changed on my credit file? I am working hard to pay off the amount still owed and also on another couple of debts. I have 3 defaults in total on my CF but the other 2 are 3 years old so I am half way to cleaning my file. Another question that I have is that it will probably take me another 3 years to clear the debt, will the monthly DF on my credit file mean that even in 3 years my when the DF fall off I will still be in a bad position as the debt will only just be paid? Sorry for the multiple questions. Any help would be very much appreciated
  2. Hi, Unsure if this is the correct area? Need some help / advice please. A relative has been involved in a accident where a car has gone into the back of his scooter at an island. The driver admitted causing the accident (noted by a passing officer) so my uncle has perused a claim against the drivers insurance company axa (uncle ins, is 3rd Party) Axa, have sent out their guy to view the bike, and has confirmed that the bike is a write-off.. (Garage purchased bike from has provided a report which details over £3k of damage - bike is worth £2400 at today price on auto trader) Now despite any correspondence from Axa, my Uncle has now received a cheque "without prejudice"for £1,495. He rang (yep i told him to email/write) and was informed that this value was less the scrap amount, of which uncle will have to scrap the bike. The bike had passed service/mot two days before the accident with glowing colours & was in excellent condition (2015). Should we send the cheque back to axa with copies of the garage reports & proofs of similar scooters from auto trader? (If so is there a template letter) Or is the offer fair? I'm not that clued up on the world of insurance. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
  3. Hi Is there a legal requirement for a default notice to have been issued before a claim can be entered against you for a credit card debt? If so can you please refer me to the legislation. Its a long story but it appears that a judgement was issued even though the judge was aware that there was no proof of a default notice having been issued. Thanks
  4. READ MORE HERE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-37126747 So the UN has admitted it caused the Outbreak which is still devastating that country to date but use there privilege get out clause and claim Diplomatic Immunity to stop paying out compensation. Shame on you United Nations
  5. Dell admits security flaw was built into computers A security hole that could allow attackers to access users' personal data was inadvertently placed on Dell computers, the company has admitted. The hole represented a "profound security flaw" that could allow access to bank details and other personal data, experts said. Dell has issued guidance on removing the software that produced it. READ MORE HERE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34910649 This is the direct link to Dell article and removal instructions: http://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/19/SLN300321
  6. Hi all, I recently gained employment with SKY in a retail store position, part of the application process was to give my consent, to what i thought was basic disclosure (disclosure Scotland) I was sucessful with my job applicatrion and was offered a formal contract of employement, wich i accepted. I had to travel to luton for a 2 week residential induction course, fully paid and my official start date of my employment was 08/06/2015. I was 3 days into my course and on the afternoon of of the 10/06/2015, just before the class of 11 were leaving for lunch i was pulled aside and asked to come into the office. In the office i was summarily dismissed for a couple of convictions that happened in 1993 showing on my CRB, im 40 years old, these happened when i was a foolish 18 year old, i got caught in a stolen car and got 6 months imprisonment for theft and taking vehicle without owners consent. This was the last time i got into any kind of trouble and i like to see myself as a conributing member of sociaty with a family and even a full clean driving license. Ive held previous posts that required a CRB, ive worked for Virgin Media, British Gas and as a load engineer, british gas and Virgin were sales roles, all the Basdic disclosures came back clear. so i only asume Sky performed a Standard or enhanced disclosure. I tried to explain to the Manager of Sky that i believed it was my right not to disclose this conviction as it was spent for a number of years, i was just dismissed out right and wasnt even given the opurtunity to appeal. Of course i was very upset, i felt humilited, ashamed and has left me in deep financial crisis. I contacted My area manager, i also phoned the HR department voicing my concerns. Sky admitted fault once there legal team looked at it and offered my position back. I told them i didnt want to work for them and refused, as i felt it could harm future prospects of promotion and left doubts in my mind, i wouldnt feel comfortable, i felt ashamed and embarrased that my employers knew and it just wouldnt feel right to work for them. My question is this, my understanding is, is that they broke the law by performing a Standard or enhanced disclosure as its just a retail job and doesnt come under the exempt list according to the rehabilitation act 1974, it also invaded my privacy, and its also left me up the creek with no paddle financially aswel as the emotional impact. It was a long winded requiment process and all in all it was 2 months from applying to starting, during that time i declined other offers of employment as i wanted to work for Sky for ages and was really exited about the job. I contacted ACAS but they cant do anything, does anybody know who i can go to, as i would really like to claim compensation, like ive said, me and my family are really struggling financially at the moment so i cant afford a solicitor, i was only working there for about 3 days so have no rights concerning employment laws, is there anything i can do? Please Help! Thank you.
  7. "Actor Alistair McGowan admits he had misgivings before agreeing to take on the part of Jimmy Savile in a new play." Yea, and them someone mentioned money and his sweaty hand couldn't grab the contract pen fast enough.
  8. Finally a Council admits in the press that its "income" is falling dramatically and needs to increase enforcement hours and to issue even more PCN's to retain its Income level. This is a story on "Scoop" recently where a Council is moaning like crazy that its income from "Fines/Enforcement" is dwindling far to rapidly. This is due to motorist's parking legally and causing serious hardship for the said Council. The full story can be read here http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/12/09/number-of-parking-tickets-issued-in-staffordshire-plummeting-resulting-in-240k-loss/ Stories like this are found here http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news Any thoughts please?
  9. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30375609
  10. An investigation by The Times into Lloyds Banking Group has found contractors employed at its largest PPI complaint handling unit were taught how to “play the system” to the detriment of clients. An undercover Times reporter went through the recruitment and training process to work as a PPI complaint handler at Royal Mint Court in London. According to the paper, the reporter was told: • Some bank salesmen had faked PPI information in agreements on loan sales; • Complaint handlers should effectively turn a blind eye to the risk of fraud; • The majority of customers would give up pursuing their complaint if the bank rejected it the first time around; • That a job as a PPI complaint handler could be “morally difficult”. The investigation also found: • A document which openly concedes that Lloyds has lost some crucial customer evidence; • Staff breached customers’ privacy under the Data Protection Act on some occasions; • That the entire operation was based on the assumption that Lloyds’ salesmen never mis-sold PPI. According to The Times, Lloyds said yesterday it had terminated its contract with Deloitte, the company responsible for running the complaints unit, after investigating “issues” at Royal Mint Court. Deloitte had run the operation since 2011. Lloyds said Royal Mint Court employees were now being re-trained by a new supplier “in line with our policies and procedures”. The bank added: “Some of the comments made by trainers to your reporter are not endorsed by Lloyds Banking Group and we believe they do not reflect our high training standards or our policies. We believe the comments to be isolated and they are now being addressed.” Deloitte said that it could not comment on specifics because of client confidentiality, but added: “Deloitte’s role was to process PPI mis-selling complaints from Lloyds Banking Group customers who were sold policies by the bank, in accordance with policies and procedures.” Link: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/latest-news/times-investigation-exposes-lloyds-ppi-complaints-failures/1072547.article
  11. Rarely audited, rarely inspected – no wonder private car parks are a rip-off [8 April 2013] The woeful level of inspection of signage at car parks has been laid bare by an admission from the British Parking Association that its annual audit of 163 private parking members includes a mandatory minimum of only ONE car park being inspected per member. So of the roughly 17,000 private car parks in the UK, all festooned with signs and markings, it’s quite possible that only about 200 are ever seen by the BPA’s supposedly independent external scrutineers, who have admitted to Plain Language Commission in the past that they have little or no specialist knowledge of readability or legibility. The BPA told us last week: ‘We do not and cannot keep close tabs on every private car park managed by a BPA member but we currently carry out as many audits as we possibly can within a self-regulatory framework. We audit every Approved Operator[‘]s entire business model every year in addition to inspecting a minimum of one car park, managed by each operator annually. The car park is chosen at random so that the operator cannot know in advance which one we will be inspecting.’ The BPA’s lack of ‘close tabs’ was confirmed by its staff member Peter Beasley who told one concerned motorist: ‘We are not in a position to visit the thousand of ... member car parks and check all the signage.’ Funny that, because the BPA delights in telling aggrieved drivers all about its stringent inspection regime, and its battle cry is ‘raising standards’. Naturally the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the government agency in business partnership with the BPA, swallows whole the BPA’s 'high standards’ rhetoric. It’s emerged from a Freedom of Information enquiry that the DVLA, which releases details of two million drivers a year to BPA members so that they can be chased for payment of penalties, visits these members to audit them not once every six months, not once every year, not once every two years, but once every three years. So this whole enormous so-called ‘industry’ – which produces little but anguish and misery across the country as it chases drivers for £160million in penalties every year on the basis of very dodgy signage – is not only unregulated but virtually uninspected by the organizations that make money out of it. Consumer campaigner and ex-Fraud Squad detective Nev Metson says he has yet to come across a single private parking ticket that complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act, which came into force on 1 October 2012. Unless the tickets – often demanding £100 – comply, the companies cannot enforce them in the courts and the DVLA has no legal basis for releasing registered-keeper data to them. (Yes, the Government is probably breaking the Data Protection Act again.) It looks increasingly as if the entire private parking industry is based on a massive bluff. Why do Trading Standards departments sit back and do nothing as consumers continue to be fleeced by companies equipped with little more than surveillance cameras, a nice line in aggressive letter-writing, and enough brass neck to start a foundry? http://www.clearest.co.uk/news/2013/4/8/Rarely%20audited%20rarely%20inspected%20no%20wonder%20private%20car%20parks%20are%20a%20ripoff?page=2
  12. Report reveals 57% of complaints are upheld. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200671/HM-Revenue-Customs-admit-wrong-majority-complaints.html
  13. He has been bailed and could face jail. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/presenter-admits-benefit-fraud-102944843.html
×
×
  • Create New...