Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Parents and teens alike are trading in their smartphones for "dumber" models to help stay offline.View the full article
    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Link trying nasty ways to get you to phone back


bigandyuk1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4594 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

thats deffo a good one.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Reviving an old thread.....

 

I had a debt with Link in 2007, and paid it off (or so I thought). I had a letter this week saying:

 

Reference XXXXXXXXXXXX

Credit Subject Investiagtion: Mrs XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX

 

A recent search of a UK Credit Reference Agency database has verified that you are currently using this address for financial transactions, which are reported to the Agency.

 

We are now making you aware that we are currently considering formal recovery action against you, which could increase the current outstanding balanfe, owed to us by you.

 

This action could also:-

 

- affect your ability to obtain further credit oar a mobile phone contract, and

 

- hinder your career at either your current or prospective employers

 

We urge you to contact our office on 020920808685 today quoting the reference number at the top of this letter.

 

Yours etc.......

 

Firstly, I check my old records and it seemed I didn't make the last and a bit extra payment - fair play, I'm happy to pay up. However, the amount listed on the letter is the original debt! I made payments by cheque so it is going to be a pain in the butt to get full details and proof :mad:

 

Secondly - can they just do a search without me knowing?

 

Thirdly - what the heck are they on about "hinder your career"?

 

I HATE these people! They originally mithered my neighbours for my details when all this kicked off - really embarrassing, and intrusive.

 

I'm writing saying my records show etc etc and I'll happily pay up the £86 I owe - is htat fair enough?

 

Many thanks for reading.

Edited by nickyhutch

Halifax Current Account

SAR sent 23 October, special delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reviving an old thread.....

 

I had a debt with Link in 2007, and paid it off (or so I thought). I had a letter this week saying:

 

Reference XXXXXXXXXXXX

Credit Subject Investiagtion: Mrs XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX

 

A recent search of a UK Credit Reference Agency database has verified that you are currently using this address for financial transactions, which are reported to the Agency.

 

We are now making you aware that we are currently considering formal recovery action against you, which could increase the current outstanding balanfe, owed to us by you.

 

This action could also:-

 

- affect your ability to obtain further credit oar a mobile phone contract, and

 

- hinder your career at either your current or prospective employers

 

We urge you to contact our office on 020920808685 today quoting the reference number at the top of this letter.

 

Yours etc.......

 

Firstly, I check my old records and it seemed I didn't make the last and a bit extra payment - fair play, I'm happy to pay up. However, the amount listed on the letter is the original debt! I made payments by cheque so it is going to be a pain in the butt to get full details and proof :mad:

 

Secondly - can they just do a search without me knowing?

 

Thirdly - what the heck are they on about "hinder your career"?

 

I HATE these people! They originally mithered my neighbours for my details when all this kicked off - really embarrassing, and intrusive.

 

I'm writing saying my records show etc etc and I'll happily pay up the £86 I owe - is htat fair enough?

 

Many thanks for reading.

 

You will be able to obtain copy cheques from your bank/building society, there will be a small charge but well worth paying, as you need the evidence.

 

Yes, they search your CRA files.

 

"Hinder your Career", threat absolutely outrageous!

 

:

I HATE these people! They originally mithered my neighbours for my details when all this kicked off - really embarrassing, and intrusive."

 

Understatement!!!

 

I would say that your best course of action would be to make a FULL SAR, in order to ascertain what has occured in relation to this account.

 

You claim to have paid it off, with exception to £86 approx but they are claiming the full balance originally owed.

 

Out of interest have you received a statement of account from them since 1 October 2008?

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will be able to obtain copy cheques from your bank/building society, there will be a small charge but well worth paying, as you need the evidence.

 

Yes, they search your CRA files.

 

"Hinder your Career", threat absolutely outrageous!

 

:

I HATE these people! They originally mithered my neighbours for my details when all this kicked off - really embarrassing, and intrusive."

 

Understatement!!!

 

I would say that your best course of action would be to make a FULL SAR, in order to ascertain what has occured in relation to this account.

 

You claim to have paid it off, with exception to £86 approx but they are claiming the full balance originally owed.

 

Out of interest have you received a statement of account from them since 1 October 2008?

 

AC

 

Hello Angrycat, and thanks for replying. Yes, I know I'll have to do some trawling through statments to find my cheques and get that sorted :mad: will teach me to keep clearer, fuller records.

 

What will the SAR show me? Will it show payments I've made?

 

And no, I've not received a thing from them statement-wise. I do think they're trying it on a bit, to be honest.

Halifax Current Account

SAR sent 23 October, special delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If they comply and get it wrong in a material respect or if they fail to comply at all, the penalties are severe. Not only will they not be able to enforce your agreements until the error is corrected, they will also be prohibited from charging interest or default sums for the period of non-compliance" !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

- what the heck are they on about "hinder your career"?

 

For certain jobs you have to pass a credit check to get the job, so a poor credit history could be a hinderance.

Halifax (current accounts, credit card, old mortgage, secured loan)

thread here

 

MBNA (three credit cards)

thread here

firstdirect (a current account, two mortgage accounts, old loans, old credit card)

they've sold my current account. thread here.

 

Royal Mail

Claim issued by former employer Royal Mail, thread here.

I counterclaimed and won. They paid in full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For certain jobs you have to pass a credit check to get the job, so a poor credit history could be a hinderance.

 

Absolutely.

 

Nasty little threat by Link Financial!

 

Heads Up; if you do not pay up, we will wreck your career...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

It seems they are still up to their nasty ways 3 years later... They sent me a letter claiming that somebody was applying for credit in my name and using my address and asking me to call them urgently on this number.

 

Then my parents called me and said that an 'old friend called Ricky' was trying to get in touch with me and wanted my information to get back in tourch with me.

 

My dad refused and took his number instead. It was the same number as the letter, 0292 0909 696. This 'Ricky' specifically said he was an 'old friend' and we had lost touch some years ago and he really wanted to get back in contact with me. He got quite upset when my dad would not give him any information about me! How are they getting away with this behaviour still? It can't be legal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...