Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
  • 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

BPM Ground Services / Credit Resource Solutions


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4251 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

Just looked on CRS website - their news section is a hoot

 

October 2005 - CRS announce that over £100M of debt is now under management

 

August 2008 - CRS has now collected over £8M on behalf of its clients.

 

Even assuming no new business October 2005 to August 2008, that is only 8% debt repayment in just under 3 years, less than 3% a year. Not exactly a sparkling performance is it? No one should take these jokers seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just looked on CRS website - their news section is a hoot

 

October 2005 - CRS announce that over £100M of debt is now under management

 

August 2008 - CRS has now collected over £8M on behalf of its clients.

 

Even assuming no new business October 2005 to August 2008, that is only 8% debt repayment in just under 3 years, less than 3% a year. Not exactly a sparkling performance is it? No one should take these jokers seriously.

 

i wish i had nothing to do but sit on my computer all day and look up debt collection agencys performances, you must lead a very exciting and fulfilled life my friend. obviously very rich running up bills and not paying them

 

you make me sick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of sending CRS a letter i thought it would be better if i spoke to them on the phone. So, I rung CRS and after 15 minutes debating i agreed reluctantly to pay the £25 for the proof and copy of the ticket.They faxed a copy over to me and to my amazement after several hours of digging through paperwork i came across an outstanding issued by BPM. I then checked the bank account to see if i had paid the ticket when it was first issued and unfortunately for me i hadn't paid it. When i phoned CRS and explained i had found the unpaid ticket they were very understanding (surprisingly!!) and even offered to reduce the debt by £20suggestion maybe if you do owe the money and are wanting to pay you ask for a reduction in the price Glad it didnt go to court! any problems I'm happy to help:)

 

Lamma - you are right as usual - its CRS, dug out the above quote from this very thread. If the post were genuine, you would have expected our Morris to be disgruntled at being stung for £100 or so. Not a bit of it, instead old Morris rushes to the defence of CRS when they are criticised.

 

Sorry to hear I make you sick Mo. What makes me sick is people who lie and cheat for a living - the above posting is hardly straight is it?

Edited by Barnsley Boy
said CPS instead of CRS - fixation?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lamma - you are right as usual - its CRS, dug out the above quote from this very thread. If the post were genuine, you would have expected our Morris to be disgruntled at being stung for £100 or so. Not a bit of it, instead old Morris rushes to the defence of CRS when they are criticised.

 

Sorry to hear I make you sick Mo. What makes me sick is people who lie and cheat for a living - the above posting is hardly straight is it?

 

no im just an average citizen, unlike yourself though i have a job and end up paying for you tossers to eat pot noodles and go on jeremy kyle

 

if someone owed you £100 am sure you'd be highly impressed if they came up with a load of reasons for not paying it.

 

enough said

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I must be a jobless, pot noodle eating, Jeremy Kyle loving tosser?

 

Well, if the cap fits?

 

Nobody did owe BPM any money and certainly not CRS when they bought the "debt" at 5 pence in the pound or whatever, it is a CON and, your poor opinion of me notwithstanding, I will continue to shout it from the rooftops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I must be a jobless, pot noodle eating, Jeremy Kyle loving tosser?

 

Well, if the cap fits?

 

Nobody did owe BPM any money and certainly not CRS when they bought the "debt" at 5 pence in the pound or whatever, it is a CON and, your poor opinion of me notwithstanding, I will continue to shout it from the rooftops.

 

lol nobody owes them.... hmmm i did!!

i even have the ticket still

deary me

 

i tell you what ill come park on your drive then, see whether or not you like it, ye? its practically the same thing... even though your going to try and tell me that it isnt.

 

ive no time for people like you ill be honest

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is a complete joke.

I have a well established job, own 95% of my home, have no debt, loans or outstanding credit and I pay my bill and credit cards every month without fail.

How dare you, Morris, tar me with a label when you know nothing about my circumstances? :mad:

I, out of principle will not be paying a supposed debt that was REVOKED by BPM, who then sold my details onto CRS who were STUPID another to pay without researching into it first.

What would you have me do? Pay £100 when I don’t owe it?

Things bad at work? Me thinks CRS may be going into Administration. BYE BYE.

People are not idiots. If I DID owe money. Why aren’t they taking me to court? WHY???????????????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol nobody owes them.... hmmm i did!!

i even have the ticket still

deary me

 

 

ive no time for people like you ill be honest

 

And people here have no time for people like you!

You must be very proud working for a company like CRS (don't deny it), so much so you take their ethics to heart and lie on a public forum just the same as you lie to the victims of CRS's pathetic attempts to extort money from them.

As stated earlier in this thread, you signed up to the forums AFTER you played the good citizen being so scared of being sent to court that you paid up. And all you have done is put down and be offensive to other forum members who are giving good legitimate advice. Your tactics may work on defenceless people who are ignorant of the law but on here they won't work. So why don't you just run back to your masters and tell them that their con artist act won't be working for much longer then all of you will be able to sit down in the mornings with a pot noodle and catch up with Jeremy Kyle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Morris miner viewpost.gif

Instead of sending CRS a letter i thought it would be better if i spoke to them on the phone. So, I rung CRS and after 15 minutes debating i agreed reluctantly to pay the £25 for the proof and copy of the ticket.They faxed a copy over to me.....

 

You (allegedly) agreed to pay a cost of £25 to get a copy of an unenforceable invoice which consisted of a single piece of paper that they then FAXED over to you a cost of about 10p !!!!

 

Jeez I didn't realise the how gullible some people can be. Obviously the PPCs do realise how gullible a lot of people are which is why they continue to make a living off a [problem].

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - I got a letter from BPM Ground Services / Credit Resource Solutions, never seen the ticket....

 

DO NOT CALL 0870 NUMBER WHICH THEY CUNNINGLY SHOW AS 08707 355 333 USE 01422431020 IT WORKS WITHOUT 0870 DISADVANTAGE. see saynoto0870.com.

 

AVOID CHARGES AND THEY GET A CUT IF YOU CALL 0870 NUMBER SO THEY PROFIT BY THIS [problem] !

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way.

There is nothing wrong with Pot Noodles, You SNOB :mad:

 

I happen to favour the chicken and mushroom variety, but do need to add some Heinz Tomato Ketchup otherwise I admit it's quite bland ;)

 

HAHAAAAA

 

lol are you crying??

maybe i am a snob... but im loving it in my mercedes :p

which i fancy parking on your drive and see if you like it.... however you probably wont have a drive will you mate?

 

pay your debts mate...

Link to post
Share on other sites

i find the advice rubbish because when it comes down to it your telling people not to pay there debts, which is wrong!!

your gonna try and tell me otherwise (im not entirely interested with). but it is wrong

if you park illegally, it serves you right... you get fined for that

if you take out a loan it needs to be paid back

 

most of you people on here think its an injustice if you have to pay back something you owe, or a fine, and prefer to dodging the issues rather than facing up to your debts. cowardice at best.

 

Serial debtors, cost this country - and the tax payers (my self included) millions of pounds. Im just sick of it and some people need to take a long hard look at themselves and sort it out.

Edited by Morris miner
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

 

Park illegally? There would have to be law to break wouldn't there

 

Fine ? = invoice.

 

How do you stand on £90 invoice for 10 minute overstay. Then deception, lies and illegal (correct use this time) practices designed to intimidate for payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you park illegally, it serves you right... you get fined for that

 

HAve I missed a change in the law whereby parking on private land has become criminal and therefore ILLEGAL, and PRIVATE COMPANIES are now legally allowed to FINE people?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you park illegally, it serves you right... you get fined for that

 

Well, if I do anything illegal I expect to take the consequences. However refusing to pay a penalty for a breach of a term in a contract is not illegal. Parking in a private car park and overstaying by a few minutes is not illegal. Displaying a ticket the wrong way up is not illegal.

 

On the other hand, trying to [problem] people into believing that they owe money when they do not is pretty close to illegal, and I wish more PPCs would get fined for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in the absence of a signed agreement a debt does not exist unless and until it is crystallised in a judgment. There is law on this. Look it up or ask an in house legal team. That is a judgment by a judge in a court rather then the judgment of someone issuing invoices and breaking a large handful of statutes when trying to trick people into paying an unenforceable penalty. Again there is law on this. See the stickies about private parking companies. Once you have read them and possibly even checked the legal references with the many free online legal resources you will see there is no case for PPC invoices. There is a large handful of laws that PPC break all the time. the most notable are Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - these will be the ones a solictor's letter will quote when they send a simple page of text that makes the PPC go away. Also regularly broken by PPCs are, inter alia Malicious Communications Act Business Names Act Enterprise Act Act Consumer regulations 2008 Fraud Act 2006 These examples alone shed quite a bit of light on the honesty of PPCs, their methods and the people that run these companies doesn't it. If you want chapter an verse an what parts of these Acts get broken by PPCs then I can supply - in detail. But read the Acts first as then you will get a much better idea oh how much wrongdoing goes on - and by whom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...