Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

my reply from experian


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5346 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

could someone in the know have a look at this letter,a default i had removed nov 2008 was on my credit file aug 2009 despite me getting a print off for the bank in may 2009 and it wasnt on that,i would like to have a go at this smug bloke thanks in advance,:mad:

 

Thank you for your emails, which we received on 17th and 21st August 2009.

 

I am sorry to hear about the reappearance of the defaulted account with Time Retail Finance that we informed you had been deleted from your credit report in my e-mail dated 24th November 2008.

 

I can assure you that at the time of writing these letters, this account did not appear on your report and would not have been seen by any lenders searching our records throughout this period.

 

Having reviewed this matter, it is apparent that Dell Financial Services did make an online amendment to this account on 20/11/08 resulting in the entry being deleted from your report from 21/11/08 onwards.

 

The company concerned must also delete the record of the account from the monthly tape that they send us which details all the account information they subscribe to Experian. Assuming the account details are removed from the monthly tape submitted to us, the account in question will not re-appear on our records. I believe that this entry was reinstated on your credit report due to Time Retail Finance not removing this from the information that they provide to Experian.

 

I have written to Time Retail Finance to request that this is done as a priority and that they investigate the reasons why this was not completed originally.

 

I have processed a manual amendment to delete this entry from your report. This will ensure that this account does not appear to any lenders searching our records for the next six months. Your report will change in the next seven days. Please use this correspondence if you need proof in the meantime.

 

From reviewing your credit report I note that no company has conducted a credit search in your name since 01/05/2009 and this search is the only search in the last 12 months. At this point the entry had not been reinstated on your credit report and as such would not have influenced this application.

 

I note that you are considering taking legal action including Experian and I would strongly recommend that you seek independent legal advice before doing so.

 

We have received several similar court claims and have been successful in having these struck out, as the cases were deemed to have no legal merit with regards to a claim against Experian.

 

This is because, in each case, we have been able to demonstrate that we have complied with the relevant legislation at all times. Consequently, the claimant has been left to pursue their claim directly against the company with whom they have a dispute regarding the data recorded on their credit report.

 

I therefore recommend that you review your legal position prior to proceeding with your claim. You may wish to consult with the Information Commissioner's Office in order to obtain an unbiased opinion.

 

Kind regards

 

Simon Malbon

Consultant Consumer Service Officer

 

Customer Support Centre

MBNA £250 bank charges refunded.:lol:

MBNA claimed £2700 in PPI:lol:

MBNA default removed.

WESCOT balance written off no cca.

WESCOT default removed.

TIME RETAIL.default removed.

LLOYDS TSB.£150 charges refunded

MINT £220 charges refunded.

currently 4 in dispute unenforcible agreements.

HFOS ordered to remove default

YORKSHIRE paid token £200 PPI going now for full £600

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you now, if you go to the ICO and file a complaint against Experian, you will not get a result.

 

In other words, what ever action Experian take in relation to incorrect information on a subjects credit file, it will always satisfy the way in which the ICO intrepret/apply the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

What the letter is also saying, given the information was not seen by any company searching your file, No Harm Done!

 

Spark

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have processed a manual amendment to delete this entry from your report. This will ensure that this account does not appear to any lenders searching our records for the next six months. Your report will change in the next seven days. Please use this correspondence if you need proof in the meantime.

 

Kind regards

 

Simon Malbon

Consultant Consumer Service Officer

 

Customer Support Centre

 

IN the past they have always said that only the OC can amend the credit file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IN the past they have always said that only the OC can amend the credit file.

 

Exactley, but if theres a chance Experian may be held responsible for a case of Libel, they will amend, change or delete data. They removed searches from my wifes file, even though 1st time round they refused to do so.

 

Its a no win situation for the punter, and they know it :)

 

Spark1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...