Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • depends what the fees are, typically nothing can be added once judgement is passed bar litigation costs. on document retention time limits etc at least 6yrs previous must be held though many hold complete info. as for acronyms and abbreviations ideally yes they should     
    • Still have to submit a statement either system....if they fail they can only give verbal because they failed to file and serve.
    • OP stated they had been arrested, but not charged (let alone convicted). They DON'T have a criminal record, but do have an entry on the PNC. That information stays on the PNC (Police National Computer) for life, but doesn't get released in a standard DBS. It only MIGHT get released for an Enhanced DBS (eDBS) check  ... but it would be incredibly unlikely. (The rational behind this is that eDBS's allow for 'information at Chief Officer of Police's discretion' ..... this covers the 2 'barring lists' and is also intended for the scenario where someone has multiple arrests or investigations, where safeguarding is a concern .... it was brought in after the Soham murders / Ian Huntley case, where the information known about the now-convicted child murderer may have prevented his employment in a school, had it been made available). So, for the sake of accuracy and completeness, arrests stay on the PNC for life, wont appear in a standard DBS, MIGHT appear in an eDBS, but in reality, would be the exception rather than the norm, and I can't see them being released  to a defense barrister. What then if the defence found out a different way, and brought it up in court?. Again, unlikely, but the important feature is that the judge would make sure they trod very carefully!. They MIGHT consider using it if there were other factors that allowed them to try to cast doubts as to the truthfulness of your evidence, but on its own : No way. Anyone MIGHT be arrested (if a seemingly plausible complaint been made against them)! The approach to take if it did come up is to be truthful. "Yes, I was arrested. It arose from a vexatious complaint. I wasn't charged, let alone convicted. That could happen to any one of us, if a vexatious complaint gets made" Far better that than lying, saying you'd never been arrested, and getting caught in a lie : that would ruin your credibility. I'm incredibly doubtful it will even come up, though.
    • we dont get N157 because its new OCMC but no court dont have evidence either.   Just seems a bit of a pointless wait but oh well
  • 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

PLS help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5505 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

Wescot Credit Services have done a search on my credit file in June 2008. Although they haven't put a default, I am worried that it may affect me when I am applying for credit. Do I need to be worried about this. I am already dealing with another matter with Equifax and Natwest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New Lead,

 

Is the search on table 1 or table 2? If its in table 2, then no one can see it but if its in table 1 then you need to contact the ocmpany and ask them to remove it. Did they do the search without your consent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply Dissiargent. I was kind of starting to feel unwelcome in this forum.

 

It is on table 1 and they didn't ask for my consent. I can't believe that anyone can do a search on me without my consent and equifax will let them. It is suppose to be my data.

 

Anyways, does anyone knw their address???

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are welcome. Sometimes, it takes a while before someone spot threads - dont take it personally.

 

No i dont have their addressed i am afraid but try local yellow pages or google.

 

I have a sample letter you could use to write to them - let me know if this will help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Letterman :),

 

Indeed, looks like the only power consumers have is to write letters - i also have a similar problem with a utility company who did a search on credit file and still disputing it. Its so absurd how they can ruin everything after so many years of keeping my credit file clean...

 

Below is the sample letter - adjust it accordingly.

 

REF: WRONG SEARCH IN MY CREDIT REPORT

This letter serves as a formal written dispute against the search that you have carried out in my Equifax personal credit file (attached and highlighted).

I am concerned that you have made a search and entered my personal information without my consent and with no apparent reasons. The listed item is completely incorrect and is a very serious error in reporting. I don't have an account with your organization and more importantly do not owe you any money. This incorrect data in my credit file is defamatory and suggest that my credit worthiness is poor and this will have serious consequences should I need to consider applying to any form of credit not to mention the negative impact on my family’s lifestyle.

Unless you can provide evidence immediately, to continue to publish inaccurate data about me is derogatory and detrimental and more importantly you have a duty to remove information of that nature whilst investigating this error.

As you are aware, I am afforded principled rights under the Data Protection Act (Data Protection Act), Schedule 1, Part 1 ("The Principles") in relation to the manner in which my data is collated, stored and processed. Of particular note, are Principles 3 and 4:

 

“3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

 

4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

 

The following information therefore must be removed please and I respectfully request this misleading item to be deleted from my file as soon as possible:

List the search and info here….

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

CC: Equifax Plc

PO Box 1140

Bradford

BD1 5US

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...