Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'guidelines'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • 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
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums


  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web


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


  • The Youth Academy
    • The Youth Consumer Service
  • Miscellaneous

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me


Found 23 results

  1. MBNA sold debts that belonged to both me and my husband. Idem bought mine, Moorcroft bought my husbands. I emailed Idem regarding reduced payments that I would make, and eventually they responded agreeing to my reduced amount. However, Moorcroft ignore emails (sent day after day) and they will not reply despite my husband requesting that they not call, but put in writing instead. They call anyway, and to whomever called, I asked them not to call, but to respond to my husband's emails - however, the chap then called my husband's mobile immediately! I got a statement from Idem, and in exactly the same marked envelope (same return address, same statement format) my husband had one from Moorcroft. Does anyone know if this is the same company??? It's really cheesing me off that Moorcroft ignore all the emails. Also, they're sneaky so-and-so's: they are based hundreds of miles away from us, and yet they call the landline using a local number that they must buy to use, to look like they're someone local calling us - idiots! It doesn't take long for me to recognise the number and ignore it. But, they're making me so mad!!! I think I'm wasting my time re-sending the same emails but at least it proves the point that they're ignoring us, dispite contacting them on a daily basis!
  2. Thought id challenge the processing of my personal data by a former employer in relation to my banking data, death-in-service beneficiaries and emergency contact details (wife and son's personal data). I left the company in June 2016. The ICO's public guidance is that the aforestated data should be deleted once the employee leaves the company. The ICO has just made a decision that is contrary to the public guidance??? the decision states companies can process the data for seven years. This is bizarre - either the public guidance requires amending or the ICO decision in my case is plainly wrong. What chance has joe public got??????? Below is the ICO's public guidance. Example An employer should review the personal data it holds about an employee when they leave the organisation’s employment. It will need to retain enough data to enable the organisation to deal with, for example, providing references or pension arrangements. However, it should delete personal data that it is unlikely to need again from its records – such as the employee’s emergency contact details, previous addresses, or death-in-service beneficiary details.
  3. Disclosure and Barring Service New identity checking guidelines READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-identity-checking-guidelines
  4. Hello. My employer tried to make a thing about how I performed my duties whilst working on the shop floor. Whilst going over the footage with them (nothing found), I seen that the CCTV showed footage of me getting changed down to my underwear (as there are no changing rooms). HR and my supervisor have both seen this footage. The employer hasn't registered with the ICO to use the CCTV but also hasn't put up signage, etc in the workplace to say that CCTV will be used and watched. Is there a legal position on this or am I getting needlessly upset?
  5. Our house was repossessed in 2009 and sold at auction to recover the outstanding mortgage balance. The sale left a shortfall of £25K+ which the lender came after me for, and being in our late-60s with no savings, assets or investments following a business collapse this is being repaid at £5 per month from Pension Credit sole-income. At this rate it would take over 400 years to settle. I have twice formally requested that this be written off, as it is clear that there is now no expectation in retirement of there being a substantial income or a radical change of circumstance that would make settlement a possibility. My first approach 4 years ago was made direct to the lender, and shortly afterward a response came from the DCA advising that their client was not willing to do so. A follow-up request restating the realities and requesting reconsideration was never replied to. My second approach 2 years ago, and two subsequent chases, have never been replied to. I believe that the mortgage lender’s code of conduct has something to say in such a regard, particularly that a lender should not, or may not, pursue recovery of a mortgage shortfall debt where it is clear that recovery is impractical or unachievable. Is there a mortgage-debt expert on CAG who can confirm or deny this? I intend to request a write-off again, and want to leave zero wiggle-room because clearly 400 years is idiotically silly to enforce at age 68 or indeed any age! Any clarification will be greatly appreciated, thanks!
  6. Hi, apologies if this is the wrong place to post this but just thought I'd ask for some help. A few weeks ago I was referred to Steps to Success (N.Ireland) with Ingeus being the provider. Having heard bad press about them I Google'd a lot and came across this great forum. The massive Ingeus thread was a massive help and calmed my nerves and I've saved a bunch of information from it such as Freedom of Information posts, operational guidelines from DWP, etc. giving me more confidence on how to deal with them and not be bullied into doing anything I don't have to do just so they can earn a few extra quid. I'm just wondering does the operational guidelines posted from the DWP cover the work programme over in N.Ireland regarding Ingeus? The reason I ask is when I went for my referral meeting I didn't sign the form that allows them to send your data to companies as a lot of people on here said not to do. Of course, the person tried to lie to me and say it's mandatory and I need to sign it, but I pointed out that it said on the form itself that I could withdraw my consent at any point, so the form can't be mandatory and it was dropped. The only issue now is that the whole form signing thing has popped up again and I just wanna make sure those operational guidelines about me not having to sign this form cover me in N.Ireland so I can continue to refuse to sign it? Thanks. tl;dr... Does the operational guidelines for the work programme posted by DWP cover the work programme in N.Ireland in relation to Ingeus?
  7. Anyone know how to get around these? I need the maximum dose every day and we're getting a bit fed up with having to go to the pharmacy on average twice a week. Is there any way I can buy 2 weeks worth in one go?
  8. The following attachment contains guidelines on filing defaults with credit reference agencies. It was published in 2007. guidance_on_defaults.pdf These guidelines have now been superseded by a new set which apparently have been drafted by the credit reference agencies themselves but with approval and apparently "close involvement" of the information Commissioner. high_level_prinicples_document_final.pdf You can spot the difference because the original 2007 version is on information Commissioner headed notepaper and the information Commissioner claims responsibility for it. The more recent 2014 revised version contains merely a "foreword" by the Information Commissioner. Of particular interest is the clear difference in approach to disputed accounts. The 2007 guidance gives very clear directions as the steps to be followed when deciding whether or not to refer a disputed account to the credit reference agency file. The 2014 guidance appears to be completely silent on this matter. Although this important issue has clearly been deliberately excluded from the more recent guidance, you should remember that first of all – this is only guidance. Secondly, the original 2007 guidelines make it clear that the entering of a disputed account on to a credit reference agency file risks breaching the legal requirement of – accuracy. Although the subject of disputed files has been omitted from recent guidance, "accuracy" is still a lawful requirement for all entries placed onto credit files. This means that the steps which the 2007 document advises should be taken, are still relevant and we feel that where there is an account which is subject of a valid dispute – as per the 2007 guidance, that this should not be referred to the CRA's. We appreciate that this places some organisations in great difficulty because it must take a great deal of time and judgement to make the right decisions. However, we are also fully aware that many organisations are really quite cavalier about the status of disputed accounts and will even use the credit reference agency as a stick to beat troublesome customers with. If you feel that you have a marker which has been unlawfully placed on your credit file because you have a valid dispute – such as a mobile phone provider failing to carry out their side of the bargain, then you should read the two guidance documents above – and keep the 2007 version very much in mind. Just because the 2007 version has been revised, it does not mean that it has no validity.
  9. I have a query, which I hope someone can help me with. In the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, under Section 7.15 about 'Statute barred debts', there are numerous references to paragraphs and annexes in the DCG. I am nigh on certain that this pertains to the 'Debt Collection Guidelines' formerly issued by the now defunct OFT. Unfortunately, the old OFT website is now completely dead, so I can't check this out there. I have searched elsewhere online, but any copies I have found don't fit with the paragraph numbers quoted in the Consumer Credit Sourcebook. I am assuming that I just can't find the last version of the DCG the OFT issued; rather than it being a case of wrong paragraph numbers being listed. I have reason to want to see the last version of the DCG the OFT issued, so if anyone can point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
  10. Hi All, Just a quick question. My partner recently went through a disciplinary at work. (Large retailer) During the process, my partner was not allowed to see any of the evidence at any point. Partner is a union member and the rep said that he could view witness statements, interview notes, etc, but that he could not reveal anything to my partner. Consequently, at the final disciplinary hearing, my partner just had selected "snippets" read out by the store manager and asked to comment on them. There was no indication how many statements there were, or whether evidence from all statements was used. Partner was not dismissed thankfully, but it appears that this is company policy, as other colleagues have experienced exactly the same thing. After reading up on ACAS, there were a number of other questionable things going on during the investigation/disciplinary process, but this seems to me to be a biggie. Just how big is it? Thanks.
  11. A surge in the number of people representing themselves in court has prompted legal organisations to draft guidelines for lawyers who come up against people who find themselves in court without legal representation. The guidelines have been developed by the Bar Council, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) and the Law Society in response to the rising numbers of people representing themselves in court without a lawyer as a result of cuts to legal aid, the increase in the small-claims limit and the introduction of employment tribunal fees. The practical guidelines are relevant to the civil and family courts and tribunals where there has been an influx of people who cannot afford to instruct a lawyer, have not been able to obtain free legal advice and often have no alternative other than to embark on 'do it yourself' justice. The guidelines discuss how far lawyers can help unrepresented people without this conflicting with their duties to their own clients. Lawyers are advised to communicate clearly and avoid technical language or legal jargon, or to explain jargon to the unrepresented party where it cannot be avoided. The guidelines are available to download below. Litigants in person: guidelines for lawyers (PDF 387kb) Litigants in person – guidelines for lawyers: Notes for litigants in person (PDF 116 kb) Litigants in person – guidelines for lawyers: Notes for clients (PDF 117 kb) A selection of relevant cases: June 2015 (PDF 109kb)
  12. The Money Advice Liaison Group (MALG) has today published its updated guidelines on mental health and debt. The Good Practice Awareness Guidelines for Helping Consumers with Mental Health and Debt, now in a third edition, are designed to help creditors, councils, debt collection companies, enforcement agents and advisers. They help those people working with borrowers experiencing mental health conditions and debt, where their condition affects their ability to manage money. MALG Good Practice Awareness Guidelines for Helping Consumers with Mental Health Problems and Debt These voluntary Guidelines (Edition 1 November 2007, Edition 2 November 2009 and Edition 3 March 2015) indicate good practice in the treatment of individuals with debt and mental health problems and deal with best practice in the management of debt when a consumer is already in financial difficulty. Lending, Debt Collection and Mental Health 12 steps for treating potentially vulnerable customers fairly.
  13. I am looking for clarification on Law regarding Vet referrals. As I am sure a lot of us have learned over the years, Vets can be rip off merchants, incompetent, abusive, use rough handling of our furry family members etc. These days, I find I no longer have a main Vet but try to use the best of each Vets speciality. For example I follow the nutrition advice of one Vet. If I needed neutering surgery I would go to another, in an emergency I woukd be forced to another and so on. Sometimes though, for diplomacy, I think its better to just go to a new Vet with a fresh start. If for example I disagreed with one Vets diagnoses and/or trt plan - rather than offend his ego, I would prefer to simply find a new Vet. Also this helps me know that the new Vet is not swayed by any other medical misdiagnoses of other Vet. I believe the professional etiquette is to get a referral for a second opinion and have the Vets communicate with one another, but I dont believe this is la A new Vet surely cannot force me to disclose past Vets, if I dont think its in my animals best medical interests?
  14. Normally I wouldn't start a thread but this particular subject lies very close to my heart having lost my daughter this year a few days before she was born. The general gist of it all seems to be that NICE are of the opinion that for low risk pregancies, it may well be safer for mums to give birth at home. Up until the day we found out our daughter had died we were smack in the middle of the 'low risk' category and expecting a very normal, healthy little girl, The link to the BBC article is here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30206540 My views, for what they're worth, are that if we're about to start categorising risk to the extent where people are encouraged to give birth at home then surveillance during pregancy needs to be improved significantly in line with the recommendations made in the Panorama episode on still births earlier this year. Secondly, there needs to be a very clear pathway for women in distress to access more advanced care as a matter of urgency, how that's done (perhaps through training of paramedics / upskilling community midwives to offer pain relief and peri-surgical interventions) I'm not sure but it's clear that for something to go wrong in someone's home could be catastrophic and without proper planning in place the consequences, however real for us this summer are life changing.
  15. Just sending a removal of implied access letter to Moorshat after they turned up today at friends house. Luckily I was there and they got send packing after I laughed at the pathetic drip of a rep. Not sent a Removal of Rights letter for years. Are there any updated bits apart from the OFT bit?
  16. hi i have a quick question on guidelines for DCAs. i have searched around but cannot find the answer. I have received a letter from Mackenzie Hall for an alleged debt. the debt issue is fine, and i can handle. my problem is when the send a letter they send the letter in a brown envelope with urgent in capital letters on the front of the envelope. this seems to me, to be breaching debt collection guidelines? can anyone comment on this? thanks
  17. Hi guys i sent a standard cca /soa/default request to a high street bank via recorded delivery which having just checked was delivered to them in early july. I have had absolutely no response at all, not even an acknowledgment. The default was made up solely of charges which i refused to pay. what do i do next? thanks
  18. Ive recied a late notice today for not taxing my car for £80 or £40 if paid within 14 days but was not given chance to pay this penelty as my car was clamped and inpounded today.My car was insured and was going to pay penelty and tax car which I explained to the clamping firm but they said I still had to pay the penelty aswell as the release fees.I believed and understood from the late penelty letter that I had 28 days to pay and no clamp would be put on my car but ive now been told ive got this wrong and the penelty was just for tax backdated I owed .This seems harsh please can anybody tell me the laws
  19. Quick Question: Does it state anywhere in the new FSA Guidelines that in order to consider a Full and final Settlement figure, that a DCA needs to see a completed Income and Expenditure Form, in order that they can assess whether we can afford the sum proposed. Cheers in Advance
  20. Hi guys, Hope someone can help. A DCA contacted me with an alleged debt owed to Orange, I had no knowledge of the debt, asked for evidence, none provided. I spoke to Orange who said the alleged debt had been sold to the DCA so they couldn't even discuss it. Heard no more about it so assumed the error had been resolved. In 2011 I got a letter from Orange and a new DCA saying Orange had sold the debt to them. I wrote to both, again stating I had no knowledge of the alleged debt, please provide proof. Also argued that as Orange had claimed to have sold the debt previously, where was the Notice of Assignment from the old DCA back to Orange? Didn't hear anything from Orange and the new DCA said I would have to prove the debt didn't exist via a letter from Orange, got a couple more standard letters but then heard no more from either. I've just checked my credit report and the (new DCA) have registered a default. In addition to this it seems they are registering a 'non-payment' every month. The alleged initial default was in 2009 but if they keep registering a default every month effectively it will never drop of my credit report. Furthermore, even I did owe the outstanding amount, the DCA have bought the full amount, I have made no agreement with the DCA to make a monthly payment so how can I be defaulting every month?! Orange don't respond to my letters and DCA won't stop until they get a letter from Orange confirming it was an error so I'm stuck with an alleged debt that I have no knowledge about. Is there any way I can get them to stop adding defaults and remove what is there? And also, insist on receiving proof of the debt? As it's a phone contract apparently the CCA rules don't apply as credit isn't involved so I'm a bit stuck with this one! Thanks for any help
  21. Not seen this posted here yet. I have shamelessly purloined it from another forum ...
  22. Hi, praticaly all correspondence I receive from my respondent's solicitors is liberally peppered with quoted sections from various procedures and legislation. So much so it does induce a certain amount of word-blindness and unease (which I think is part of the reason it is included!). Are there a few basic pieces of legislation and/or guidance notes that I should be looking at in order to appreciate the overall business of the Tribunal and the responsibilities of both the claimant and the respondent. The tribunal service sent me a few very basic booklets - but nothing that covers the procedural tomfoolery of my respondent's solicitors. Any pointers would be most useful.
  23. Hi, I just wondered if there are any regulations or guidelines that companies must follow before entering a default with a CRA? I've heard the term default notice but not sure if that's what it relates to or if they have to send one out. DCA sent me a letter saying they bought the debt and a default 'has been placed....' ie they placed the default before even notifying they owned the alleged debt/that I owed any money! Any info gratefully recevied
  • Create New...