Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
    • The streaming giant also said it added 9.3 million subscribers in the first three months of the year.View the full article
  • 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

So Now We Really Know


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5485 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

Judicial Business

 

(From House of Lords web site)

Tuesday 31 March

Appeal Committee The 33rd Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Order was made:

 

Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v Abbey National plc and others (Petitioners) That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 15 April.

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson 1802

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well could have been worse-werent the HOL expected to give their answer within 8 weeks ?

 

In all probability its been decided that after being given KBs from 4 judges-why delay the 5th and final one ?

 

The last appeals of October were done and dusted quite quickly.

We can assume that the OFT and the banks have already arrived at some conclusions-this is last chance saloon.

It wont come a day too soon for those 65,000 claimants with cases stayed......The Judges must surely be cancelling holidays this summer ?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote

 

"The House met at 2.30pm.

Prayers were read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford."

 

 

 

 

I think the banks might just need them.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well could have been worse-werent the HOL expected to give their answer within 8 weeks ?

 

In all probability its been decided that after being given KBs from 4 judges-why delay the 5th and final one ?

 

The last appeals of October were done and dusted quite quickly.

We can assume that the OFT and the banks have already arrived at some conclusions-this is last chance saloon.

It wont come a day too soon for those 65,000 claimants with cases stayed......The Judges must surely be cancelling holidays this summer ?

 

If we don't get a decision before 31st July 2009 its a wait until October for the next sitting of the Law Lords.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I think this is in the equasion-July should be adequate...lets see how quickly the appeal is listed following the April 15 deadline-that should give more than a little insight.;)

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice job if you can get it... Even the kids get shorter holiday than that! :rolleyes:

We are getting rid of the HoL(law lords, that is)in September I believe :D

 

God that sounds a crap sentence. Start again. The highest appeal court should be changing this year. (is that any better?)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is that I cannot get my head around the fact that it goes to the House of Lords!! Isn't that House made up of Titled CEO's from the banking establishment??? or am I mistaken??

Forgive my ignorance!! but how can this be fair????

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is specifically LAW LORDS and not political Lords.

 

The same 'Law lords' that are members of the same Masonic lodge as the 'political lords' or 'other' Law Lords'?

 

 

FTD

Link to post
Share on other sites

The same 'Law lords' that are members of the same Masonic lodge as the 'political lords' or 'other' Law Lords'?

 

 

FTD

 

The same Law Lords that have been the basis of the OFT test case. First National case in 2001. Everyone has said at every point in the case that the banks will win. Think about what they have won?

Justice Smith---LOST

High Court Appeals(3 judges including the Master of the Rolls)-----LOST

(the masonic lodge, so far, isn't working very well for the banks) ;)

can you name which Law Lords are part of the Masonic Lodge with evidence? Name and shame 'em. It will help the OFT appeal if they were to, ermmmm, lose.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

:eek: should i dare to say that there could be a case for "a conflict of interests" with the law lord and lodges ? ;-)

 

You can always say that and the only issue I would have is proving that as a court of Law requires the burden of proof.

Can I ask anyone if there is masonic lodges at The European Court of Justice(just so I am certain where we might go with the thread if the appeal goes to the ECJ)?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has said at every point in the case that the banks will win.
I don't think that's quite right, YB. Everyone feared at some point in the case that the banks would find a way to win, and I think that until such time where it's all done and dusted, there will always be that worry.

 

Having been stitched up as much as we have been over the years, you can hardly blame people for ranging from cautious to paranoid. And I am sorry to say that the Solomon judgment of Smith J has done nothing to reassure the masses. (they're not penalties, but they're not for a service either :rolleyes:.) The banks themselves are of course fuelling this mistrust, after shafting us for years, they promised to deal with this test case as expeditiously as possible, and now seem set to take it as far as they possibly can, whilst the stays (yes, I know the reasoning behind, but you have to admit they thoroughly advantage the banks) stay in place and frustrate people in their efforts to get justice.

 

I know what you are saying about the Lords being unlikely to reverse themselves, but by the same token, it would be premature to celebrate already, it's not over till the fat Lords and Ladies sing... Until the final judgment is given and all our stays lifted, there is little reason for people to rejoice and the ever ongoing fear that the banks will find a way to keep their claws on our money has to stay in all our minds, that is only natural. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

The stays won't be lifted when this part of the case is resolved. Bookworm, I that you do actually READ and DIGEST the information on the test case. I hope people don't fall into the trap of believing that if or when the decision states that bank terms can be assessed under UTCCR 1999 that the stays and the waiver will be lifted. They will not and to think so is unfortunately misguided. I suspect we maybe looking at a minimum of 12 months.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean that we have extra time to get the funds together to file at court? Assuming a judgment is made in July will it be necessary to file any 'old' cases before then. I still have one going back to the last century and am still struggling to find the fee - don't qualify for exemption/remission any more.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, YB, that would be why I said when the FINAL judgment is done and dusted... :rolleyes:

Apologies the Fat Lords and Ladies comment through me since the case is with the HoL :oops:

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...