Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'richard'.



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 5 results

  1. Richard Durkin has won his appeal – HFC liable for damages for breach of duty and trashing his credit rating (but the court can’t re-award the original damages). So lenders had better beware when falsely recording defaults with the CRAs and crapping on people’s financial reputations. Well done Richard. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-26731192 There are lost of implications from this judgment (which existed before his original win was reversed on appeal) which I’m sure will filter out over the next few days. s75.1 of the CCA is now much stronger as a result of this.
  2. There is a huge amount of misinformation regarding the forcing of entry for court fines. In the first instance, a separate warrant is not necessary and is not a requirement. For the avoidance of doubt, forced entry is permitted by the warrant itself. It is not used that often and in most cases, is used where a debtor refuses to engage with the enforcement agent. It is sadly the case that forced entry has also taken place because the debtor himself has been wrongly advised of the legal position. As an example, on Saturday, I received an enquiry where a locksmith was present. In that particular case, the debtor had paid a lot of money (approx £150) to have a statutory declaration prepared claiming that he did not own any of the goods within the house. He was told that the enforcement agent must accept this document as evidence and that he was therefore not allow to gain entry. These statutory declarations are causing a lot of problems at the moment.
  3. repA_09626739_513-061645-13519104_1.pdfAnyone have any experience with this company? Company Number: 09626739 Date of Incorporation:06/06/2015 Company Name: ASSURED SUPPORT LTD Registered Ofce: SUITE 10 THE GLOBE CENTRE ST JAMES SQUARE ACCRINGTON LANCASHIRE ENGLAND BB5 0RE Company Type: Private Limited Company Country of Origin: United Kingdom Status: Active Nature Of Business (SIC): 82990 - Other business support service activities Seems to have been involved in a string of companies - about 19 of them - almost all of which were dissolved after a very short time. https://www.endole.co.uk/profile/8731695/oliver-richard-tennant Also often with Helen Lousie Wood https://www.endole.co.uk/profile/15177342/helen-lousie-wood Lots of overdue accounts and returns At least one outstanding charge - https://www.endole.co.uk/company/08912889/assured-nw-ltd?page=charges
  4. Dear All, My daughter back in May received 2 Parking charge notices from parking eye for her car being parked at Charnock Richard Services on the m6 north, she checked the dates when her car was parked and being that i am the only other person to drive her car and plus the fact she rarely drives on the motorway it was clear that it was in fact me driving the car at the time, when she called parking eye she gave them my details to which i do not have a problem with. Now i have the 2 parking charges and they are asking me to pay £100 for each of these or £60 each if i pay within the 14 days of this order being sent to me, i spoke to parking eye this afternoon and they have said it has been put on hold for 14 days to allow me to appeal and after that they will pursue it further, i have seen a few appeals have been won by not clear signage and parking eye not being the landowner etc i am wondering if this is the case and how do i go about it. I would really appreciate it if anybody could help me with this.
  5. . . . . This made me laugh so much I had to share...
×
×
  • Create New...