Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been reading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. On mediation form you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee that you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • 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
      • 160 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

1st Credit issuing default on credit file?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5310 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

First post to the forum so I hope I'm in the right place.

 

I defaulted on a CitiFinancial loan in December 2008 with a balance of £3607. I dispute that balance - my calculations have it at £1400 - and I'm currently disputing that with 1st Credit whilst continuing to make monthly payments to them.

 

However, I've just received my credit file from Experian. CitiFinancial placed a default on my file on 31/12/08 for £3607. 1st Credit have also placed a default on my file for the same amount and the same date.

 

Can a default really be placed twice for the same account? Can a DCA place a default at all? How can 1st Credit claim I defaulted on any agreement with them when I never had an agreement with them? Moreover, in my email discussions with 1st Credit about the balance, they state they didn't take over the account until February 27 so how they can have issued a default for two months previously?

 

Thanks for any clarification anyone can give.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot be defaulted on the same debt twice and you should contact the credit reference agencies to have 1st credit's default removed. You should also report 1st Credit to the OFT and the Information Commissioner for doing this as it breaches the Data Protection Act 1998. Why are you paying 1st Credit when the account is in dispute? Have you asked for a copy of your credit agreement to check if it is enforceable? because if it isn't you don't have to give 1st Credit another penny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice, Pinky69. I will contact Experian to have the default removed and report 1st Credit to the OFT. :)

 

I'm paying 1st Credit because I'm only disputing the balance not the debt itself. I figure, perhaps incorrectly, that 1st Credit will still ask for some payment until the balance issue is resolved. They cannot claim, therefore, that I'm simply being obstructive.

 

I've written to Citi and 1st to resolve that issue and it may be that I revisit the issue of payments in the next few weeks if I receive unsatisfactory answers.

 

I have asked for a copy of the credit agreement though not for enforceability but to check for various 'add-ons/PPI' that I believe Citi tacked on to the account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm paying 1st Credit because I'm only disputing the balance not the debt itself. I figure, perhaps incorrectly, that 1st Credit will still ask for some payment until the balance issue is resolved. They cannot claim, therefore, that I'm simply being obstructive.

 

I would check every aspect of this including enforceability as if you are trying to negociate a settlement, it will put you in a very strong position.

 

Bear in mind that 1st Credit are a parasitic company who go out and buy debts with the intention of milking the customer for all they are worth. They have also been investigated by the OFT and are only still allowed to operate under sanctions imposed by them.

 

If you have done a Sec 78 Request for a copy of the agreement and they have not provided the documents within 12 +2 working days, you can legally stop paying them.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need a SAR from citi and a full statement of account from 1st crud for the time they've had their slimy hands on it.

 

The SAR will tell you if citi added any unfair charges which you can claim back.

 

Please do report them to the OFT as this is now a critical time as OFT have their eye on 1st crud :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to follow up on this, 1st Credit have emailed to say that they are going to ask Citi to remove their default as they no longer own the account.

 

Seems a strange one. At least Citi, as original creditor, had some legitimacy applying the default. I don't see where 1st Credit got their legitimacy. I have emailed them to ask them this.

 

I'd be very surprised if Citi removed the default on 1st Credit's say-so. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I've had a letter from 1st Credit that states they "...have the same rights as Lloyds TSB to give information to credit reference agencies about the personal debt that you owe is respect of this account if: You have fallen behind on payments.." Is this true?

 

Anyhoo...this is a debt that originally defaulted in 1998 and so I began an IVA but my partner who I was doing the joint IVA with did a runner so it was defaulted. It was then taken up by Mackanzie Hall in 2000. it was taken over by Mackenzie Hall and I was paying them until I got wise via this website and sent a CCA request about 2 years ago which they didn't fulfil.

 

I am guessing that 1st Credit don't have the signed credit agreement either...we'll see. My main question tho is does the period to count for statue barred start from my last communication with TSB (over 10 years ago) or with Mackenzie Hall (only 2 years ago).

 

Any advice would be greately appreciated.

Thank you

 

Cara

Edited by Halfangelhalftart
Link to post
Share on other sites

1st Credit have responded with this bamboozler -

 

'We would clarify that once 1st Credit purchased this account on the 27th February 2009 all rights and duties relevant to this debt (including the requirement to register the default) were also assigned to us.

 

The necessity to issue the default notice lies with the company who owns the debt at the time of default. On this occasion it was CitiFinancial.

 

As the sums are owed to 1st Credit, we are legally entitled to register the default on your credit file.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just to update on this. Equifax instructed CitiFinancial to remove their default although they said 1st Credit's default was valid - a legal argument about 1st inheriting Citi's liabilities and responsiblities when they took over the debt including the requirement to register a default. A small victory perhaps. :p

 

I've just received some documentation from Citi, including a statement of account. My earlier confusion about the account balance is down to Citi applying £1,600 in charges to the account - around £400 in £10 monthly fees over the last 3 years or so and £1,200 in charges for declined/cancelled Direct Debits. Does anyone know if it is possible to reclaim these?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...