Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks @lookinforinfo.   The text is updated:   1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The Airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest. Furthermore, VCS has been running the parking business at airports over the years it would be expected that they would become familiar with the Airports Act. Unfortunately, they choose to neglect and deny the Act in their Witness Statement.
    • Hi Mango,   Please don't post in large blocks of text as it's far harder to read. Spacing added for you in the post above.   Please give brief answers to UncleB's Q's above so we can better assess your case, thanks.
    • "These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest." Well worded.   I would add that as VCS have been  active in Airports over the years  that one would  expect they would be familiar with the Airports Act which would call into question the accuracy of their WS.   By questioning their WS you are hoping that VCS might decide not to turn up in Court [giving you a walkover] as they might not want the Judge looking closely at their WS. Also it would not be good for them should you win your case based on the Airports Act as it will have other Courts  kicking out other Airport cases hitting them in the pocket.    
    • Hi,   Still no response. I have my Liability Order hearing in a few days time, I was hoping I might have been able to receive a response from either my local councillor or the leader of the council before then. I wonder if they are just going to ignore my email?   Walshy    
    • I have got an  independent expert report which clearly states it is a manufacturing fault, which DFS have been made aware of.   My point is that as a huge retailer of leather sofas with leather peeling  being a common complaint to me it seems evident they are aware it is a manufacturing fault on their side. Yet they play games with customers and worse of all try their level best to get the customer to believe that it is their fault due to oils or creams they are using.   Even if one is to believe that every day creams etc can cause this damage then in any event the sofas are not fit for purpose.   Surely they are merely playing a numbers game banking on the fact that most complainants will not follow through with legal action. Yet what about the anguish and distress they cause to customers in the process.   To me this shows alot of contempt towards consumers and is clearly unethical.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

my reply from experian


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4204 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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...