Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
  • 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

Whose searching my file


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5776 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

I have several searches on my credit file from banks and credit card companys which I do not recognise.

 

I tackled Experian who said they only publish information they are given and to get onto the Banks or credit card companys.

 

I rang up the banks and credit card companys and none of them have any record of myself or my partner having applied for anything so I asked them to remove the entries. All their replies were the same. Because they had no details of us they could not remove what according to their records wasn't on there in the first place.

 

When I queried these entries again with Experian they wrote to the companies who replied to Experian that the records they held was correct.

 

Please help as I am now recieving spoof emails from these "creditcard companys and banks" asking me to update my account details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the searches have entry numbers beginning with "U"?

If they do then they are unrecorded searches and only you and Experian can see them.

 

Some are generated by you or someone you are financially associated with searching sites like comparethemarket.com and places like this and getting quotes! According to Experian they are address and date of birth checks.

 

They fall off after a year!

 

Although, having said all that, I wouldn't trust Experian or any of the others!

 

BobbYH

Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving information to any of these web based firms, brokers etc: will result in your details being searched against the details on the CRA's GAIN data base (gone away) of known missing delinquent debtors to see if they match in anyway & if they do, no matter how tenuously, the creditor/client of the CRA is informed automatically.

 

This is the principal reason why so many consumers are being chased for debts about which they know nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they do not begin with U.

 

Some of these have been on my file since 2002 and try as I might I cannot seem to get rid of them. The companys who are on my file say they cannot trace any record of me or my OH having applied for anything and as they have no record of me they say they cannot ask for the records to be adjusted, yet when Experian write to them another department says the records Experian holds are true.

 

I even have letters from some of them saying they have never heard of me and the Experian letters saying everything they've told Experian is true.

 

Go figure!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CRA's have a responsibility to only show accurate information and if they share anything but accurate information with a third party then they place them selves in a position to be sued.

 

Write to the CRA and request a copy of the agreement or application under which you signed or agreed your express permission to have these entry's against your account.

 

Also advise the CRA that you need the accurate details to request transcripts of the call you " supposedly" made to the companies processing the information.

 

If they can assure the CRA they are legitimate entry's then they must assure you to.

 

Send the CRA letter to the companies and companies letters to the CRA's and so on but don't give up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what they say, Experian don't keep anything older than 6 years ... so you could wait a few months & see what happens.

 

Do the searches do you any harm in any way?

 

Send a SAR to Experian. That should show full details of the searches & what the other companys said about the searches.

 

Then choose one of the companies that did a search, send a SAR to them.

 

You will either get the information that you want, or will be in a better position to get the search removed - you could then write to the company enclosing a copy of the relevant part of the experian report, saying remove this or provide the information that you suppressed from my SAR, and to Experian to say remove it because the company said they had no record of me in response to a SAR

 

Of course you still might get nowhere because Experian are always right and always follow the DPA and all advice from the IC to the letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...