Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'admitting'.



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/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • 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
  • chilleddrivingtuition

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


Location

Found 3 results

  1. Hi, Can someone explain the difference between box 1 or box 4? box 1 - admit liability for claim and make written application to pay by instalments and box 4 - admit liability for claim and apply for time to pay under consumer credit act 1974 the paperwork looks very similar? Which would be the best one to submit? I owe the debt, they have proved i owe the debt, i want to pay it off but can't pay in one lot. I would rather not have to attend court if possible, hence why i want to admit and make offer to pay. Just confused re the 2 options for making application to pay in instalments.
  2. Hi all I would welcome some advice on this please. In September, I upgraded my phone with T Mobile and entered into another 18 month contract. Had a nightmare with the first handset that 2 T Mobile stores were not interested in despite quoting the usual sale of goods act etc. and me taking the handset back on the 10th day after having received it. Eventually, Customer Services on 150 relented and replaced it as a swap out the next day. I got round to reading the manual last weekend to see what exciting things I was missing out on and I decided to download some new screensavers to make the phone a bit more "funky." I then discovered that despite changing all the settings that the screensaver would never activate. The phone display switches over to power save mode, i.e. goes blank instead of displaying the screensaver. I undertook some research into the issue on both T-Mobile's user forums and Nokia's own support discussion forums and it turns out that this is a known software bug in the N79 handset. It also appears that the manufacturer knows about it but has failed to fix it in subsequent firmware releases. It is also unlikely that Nokia will now release any further firmware for the handset as technically, or rather in the technical world, it is now quite an "outdated model." I have emailed T Mobile Customer Relations about this and they have contacted me to say that if the manufacturer is not going to fix it there is nothing that can be done. I however am not happy with this. Surely the goods are not functioning "as described," i.e. the manual states that you can change the screensaver and although you can, the end result is that it doesn't work. I know that a non-functioning screensaver is not a life or death situation i.e. the phone makes calls, sends texts, browses the web but am I the only consumer that is getting a bit sick and tired of companies that earn millions of pounds from their customers getting away with everything? At the end of the day, my contract is subsidising the cost of the handset in a large capacity. If I had purchased this phone directly, it would have cost me a few hundred pounds at least. The crux of it is that I used Nokia phones for years previously and every handset I have had has always had "some problem" of one thing or another. Back around 2003, I had Orange replace 15 handsets, one after the other and each one exhibited the same problem as the last. It was a nightmare. I thought that 6 or so years later, with the advancement in technology that Nokia may have improved it's standards and the first phone I pick up in this 7 year period manufactured by them exhibits yet another fault. I have contacted Nokia, although I am under the impression that it is not down to them to sort the problem out and they have suggested that I send the phone "for repair," which judging by other users on their support forums, does not resolve the problem anyway and just leaves you without a phone for 2 weeks. I was wondering if I could glean some opinions please ? Am I right that the phone is not "functioning as described" and therefore breaches the sale goods act ? Thanks very much J
  3. This was received today from Experian. ' With regards to =======, I would not disagree with the statement of their Customer Relations Officer. I don't believe that I claimed ======= were responsible for the entry appearing on your credit report or subsequently removing it. I removed the entry from your credit report by entering a "disassociation" at your new address between your name and DOB and the other name and DOB. This helps our database differentiate between the two individuals with similar names but different dates of birth. We already have disassociations in place between you and the other individual at your previous address, but we need to enter a new disassociation if you change address. This is particularly important if the other individual with similar details moves to the address with you, whether temporarily or permanent.' This was in response to an ongoing query as to how a family members credit data keeps appearing on another family members credit file. None of the data is good data and has caused a lot of distress financially, and destruction within the family. Does this sound like Experian are admitting that the fault lies with them?
×
×
  • Create New...