Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
    • Sleep apnoea: used to require the condition  to be “completely” controlled Sometime before June 2013 DVLA changed it to "adequately" controlled. I have to disagree with MitM regarding the effect of informing DVLA and S.88 A diagnosis of sleep apnoea doesn't mean a licence wont be granted, and, indeed, here it was. If the father sought medical advice (did he?) : this is precisely where S.88 applies https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64edcf3a13ae1500116e2f5d/inf1886-can-i-drive-while-my-application-is-with-dvla.pdf p.4 for “new medical condition” It is shakier ground if the opinion of a healthcare professional wasn’t sought. in that case it is on the driver to state they believed they met the medical standard to drive. However, the fact the licence was then later granted can be used to be persuasive that the driver’s belief they met the standard was correct. What was the other condition? And, just to confirm, at no point did DVLA say the licence was revoked / application refused? I’d be asking DVLA Drivers’ Medical Group why they believe S.88 doesn’t apply. S.88 only applies for the UK, incidentally. If your licence has expired and you meet the conditions for S.88 you can drive in the U.K., but not outside the U.K. 
    • So you think not pay until DN then pay something to the oc to delay selling to dcas?    then go from there? 
  • 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

Credit Ref Agency reply to DPA s.12 request-help please


Number6
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4841 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

Hi Dayglo

 

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately I didnt sent it to the company secretary. Why is it wrong in the letter, would be interested to know for future reference? I havent read anywhere that it shouldnt be in the letter, and its still in the template letter. Could you point me to the thread where SB says to leave it out. Thanks again.

phew getting a right sweat on!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 525
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

it's only wrong in this context because it says "as a highly educated company secretary...."

 

if you haven't sent it and addressed it to the company secretary then it just doesn't read well. That is all.

 

It does bring me to suggest however that there seems to be many people sending off the template letters without fully reading it and trying to understand it. Remember, the most common response so far to the template letter, is "you are wrong - we can ignore this request etc. the ICO say we can carry on etc" so you have to understand exactly what it is that you are saying in YOUR letter if you are going to be able to deal with this to it's conclusion. There is no ready made step-by-step guide for this, but stick with it and good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's only wrong in this context because it says "as a highly educated company secretary...."

 

if you haven't sent it and addressed it to the company secretary then it just doesn't read well. That is all.

 

It does bring me to suggest however that there seems to be many people sending off the template letters without fully reading it and trying to understand it. Remember, the most common response so far to the template letter, is "you are wrong - we can ignore this request etc. the Information Commissioners Office say we can carry on etc" so you have to understand exactly what it is that you are saying in YOUR letter if you are going to be able to deal with this to it's conclusion. There is no ready made step-by-step guide for this, but stick with it and good luck.

 

Agreed... I am sorry if I have worried anyone, that wasn't my intention. But it has proved a good point as Daylgo has pointed out and that I was trying to get at earlier. It is imperative you read and reread any correspondence you send out which is pulled from a template. You need to understand it ideally..

 

Notty, don't worry, it won't affect you, but like Dayglo said it could look unprofessional and is and things like that are an instant giveaway that is a template letter..

 

No worries though ;)

If you find this post useful, please click the Scales of 'Justice' in the top right corner. Thanks ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but there's a subtle difference. Lenders do not share credit account data to penalise people.

 

jamesj: I am not too sure the validity of your quote above. On 2 occassions I have had 3 defaults (1 for each account) with a bank, Clydesdale and BOS. They never fed any data to the CRAs for the years of GOOD credit I had only when I had some money problems.

 

ps good to have someone brave enough to come and chat, shame the banks and other financial institutions are professional enough to take part too. Just hope we make progress in improving the system for all.

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

ps good to have someone brave enough to come and chat, shame the banks and other financial institutions are professional enough to take part too. Just hope we make progress in improving the system for all.

 

hmmmm, the jury is out on that one.

 

consider the evidence.

 

1) JamesJ arrived at the time Surly presented his case to Experian

2) at the point at which Experian conceded Surly's point (see letter in sticky) JamesJ disappears, according to Surly "he was advised not to post here by his employers"

3) remarkably, at the same time that we learn of serious concern within CRAs that their case is unlikely to be upheld in a court and a weak verdict from the ICO JamesJ returns

4) JamesJ returns avoiding answering legal questions and sticks to the party line "motherhood and apple pie" comments - I mean just read some of his 'helpful' stuff from this afternoon

5) I allege that JamesJ is here as part of a planned attempt to put people off taking action and to entice people into 'abusing' his posts so that we get deflected from the issues in hand - consider last weeks 'banning/exile' of SB for example.

 

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all that i totally agree with SB. I think that it is about time that we really stopped putting questions to JJ and simply just ignore him. No offence JJ but you really did dodge a lot of questions that were asked of you out there. You choose to answer the ones where the answer really didnt make a difference to the legal standing of the CRAs. Like SB said he just takes the companies stance of oh well contact this department if it is wrong and so forth when we all know if we do contact them it will never get changed anyway. Everyone we all know that the companies are wrong to issue these defaults to the CRAs and we all know that the CRAs are wrong also and JJ is going to tell you there are right otherwise if he sides with us that they are wrong i doubt that it would go down too well at his work. Everytime you ask him a question you are just banging your head into a brick wall and your playing into their hands by keep asking. If you want to know the answers they why ask JJ you might as well ring up the Call Centre you will get a quicker answer though it will just be the same old same old.

 

Lets stick to our guns and just start issuing these letters to every man and his dog i.e companies and CRAs and then finally Court. Lets not take this Sh!te from them any longer.

If you find this info useful please click on the scales in the bottom left corner of the thread :wink:

 

Vodafone To Remove Default Notices thread

Paid In Full HSBC Was Claiming £3851.42 But Instead of Paying Me Decided to pay my £4900 Loan OffDG Solictors. Need Help

Concluded Lloyds TSB 27/05/2006 Action Against LloydsTSB

Concluded Lloyds TSB for Girlfriend. 27/05/2006

Paid In Full Capital One £160 Settled

Paid In Full Capital One Sent 15/05/06 for £1372 for Girlfriend

Paid In Full Cetelem £130 Settled

Paid In Full The AA £400 Settled

Paid In Full First National £160 Settled

PDA LloydsTsb Credit Card Hand Delivered 26/04/06 £180

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have stopped feeding the troll.

 

Nearly got myself kicked off here earlier this afternoon for slightly losing it and having a punt at him, I'm normally such a chilled person too :mad:

 

Pete

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have stopped feeding the troll.

 

Nearly got myself kicked off here earlier this afternoon for slightly losing it and having a punt at him, I'm normally such a chilled person too :mad:

 

Pete

 

Well its ok for you, you are only a number not a man :D (watch out for the big white ball chasing you ):eek:

 

Halifax

Sent LBA
27/6/06

Been on hol for a week, got home found letter from them dated
27/6/06 offer of £92 claiming £1155.10 so no deal.

Filed claim with Moneyclaim 12/07/06

Halifax acknowledged claim 25/7/06

Court papers received 28/7/06 Halifax intend to defend.

HALIFAX SETTLED IN FULL 1/8/06

Donation made

Birmingham Midshire (mortgage charges) Prelim letter sent 2nd Aug 2006, full offer received 11th Aug with conditions.

13th Aug accepted offer unconditionally.

BIRMINGHAM MIDSHIRES (MORTGAGE) SETTLED IN FULL 24/8/06

Sent SurlyBonds template letter to get defaults removed to Birmingham Midshires 27/08/06

DEFAULTS REMOVED 5/09/06.
THATS 9 DAYS LATER, YES 9 DAYS

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its ok for you, you are only a number not a man :D (watch out for the big white ball chasing you ):eek:

 

What would you know about big white balls eh? :shock::D

 

Sorry, I'll fetch my coat now!

 

Pete

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dayglo, Is your Avatar from Dark Side Of The Moon ?

 

Halifax

Sent LBA
27/6/06

Been on hol for a week, got home found letter from them dated
27/6/06 offer of £92 claiming £1155.10 so no deal.

Filed claim with Moneyclaim 12/07/06

Halifax acknowledged claim 25/7/06

Court papers received 28/7/06 Halifax intend to defend.

HALIFAX SETTLED IN FULL 1/8/06

Donation made

Birmingham Midshire (mortgage charges) Prelim letter sent 2nd Aug 2006, full offer received 11th Aug with conditions.

13th Aug accepted offer unconditionally.

BIRMINGHAM MIDSHIRES (MORTGAGE) SETTLED IN FULL 24/8/06

Sent SurlyBonds template letter to get defaults removed to Birmingham Midshires 27/08/06

DEFAULTS REMOVED 5/09/06.
THATS 9 DAYS LATER, YES 9 DAYS

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

good evenin' Pete,

I thought you were gonna lose it this afternoon!

 

Hi dayglo.

 

Me too for a while! :| That guy really winds me up.

 

Bit of a crap week so far as well for me so I'm feeling at bit unchilled anyhow!

 

All OK now though!

 

Pete

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dayglo, Is your Avatar from Dark Side Of The Moon ?

 

I wish all the questions on here were as easy as this one.

I can say, categorically, without recourse to any court, regulator or act of parliament that the answer is yes.

 

"money... get your hands of my stash"!!!!! (and many others)

 

 

owww - you see what you've started now Lizzy? In my head I'm now going through all the CAG related puns that must exist on DSOTM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an early start on the morrow so I'm off to bed now.

 

See you all tomorrow.

 

Pete

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a parting thought...

 

I haven't checked but does this thread get the "Longest Thread on the Forum" Award?

 

Pete

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish all the questions on here were as easy as this one.

I can say, categorically, without recourse to any court, regulator or act of parliament that the answer is yes

 

See a straight answer to a straight question and not an allegedly in sight ;)

 

Halifax

Sent LBA
27/6/06

Been on hol for a week, got home found letter from them dated
27/6/06 offer of £92 claiming £1155.10 so no deal.

Filed claim with Moneyclaim 12/07/06

Halifax acknowledged claim 25/7/06

Court papers received 28/7/06 Halifax intend to defend.

HALIFAX SETTLED IN FULL 1/8/06

Donation made

Birmingham Midshire (mortgage charges) Prelim letter sent 2nd Aug 2006, full offer received 11th Aug with conditions.

13th Aug accepted offer unconditionally.

BIRMINGHAM MIDSHIRES (MORTGAGE) SETTLED IN FULL 24/8/06

Sent SurlyBonds template letter to get defaults removed to Birmingham Midshires 27/08/06

DEFAULTS REMOVED 5/09/06.
THATS 9 DAYS LATER, YES 9 DAYS

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmm, the jury is out on that one.

 

consider the evidence.

 

1) JamesJ arrived at the time Surly presented his case to Experian

2) at the point at which Experian conceded Surly's point (see letter in sticky) JamesJ disappears, according to Surly "he was advised not to post here by his employers"

3) remarkably, at the same time that we learn of serious concern within CRAs that their case is unlikely to be upheld in a court and a weak verdict from the Information Commissioners Office JamesJ returns

4) JamesJ returns avoiding answering legal questions and sticks to the party line "motherhood and apple pie" comments - I mean just read some of his 'helpful' stuff from this afternoon

5) I allege that JamesJ is here as part of a planned attempt to put people off taking action and to entice people into 'abusing' his posts so that we get deflected from the issues in hand - consider last weeks 'banning/exile' of SB for example.

 

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

 

Agreed. And for this, among other reasons, I have personally decided to abondon this thread, (not that I contributed a great deal anyway :D). It is my opinion that no specific questions will be answered here and the decision by JJ was not brave, merely experimental.

 

His presence here appears inflamatory and counter-productive, but I believe this is his intention.

 

My opinions, (and they are only opinions), are not intended to defame JJ in any way, we have all got a job to do and if he can be of help, offer concrete guidance and specific legal advice then I will gladly eat a large slice of humble pie.

 

I will be keeping an eye on thread out of interest and have a final question:-

 

JJ, why ARE you here?

Smile:-The Ethical Bank:- Settled July 2006

HSBC:- Pre-lim sent 09/10/2006

LBA sent:-26/10/2006

Court papers issued:- 13/11/2006

Citifinancial/DLC:- Ongoing since 21st August. Now part of an OFT investigation into Debt Collection Practices.

I am only a Doctor of Love NOT Law. Don't blame me if me advice goes belly up!

:D (I will try to help all the same)

 

If i've helped, use the scales at the top to tell me how great I am!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point that we probably should all remember aswell is this. When a lot of people from here tackled the banks about the unlawful charges that they charged which ended up in the account being put into default the banks said they are justified in charging these prices and the default was correct. When court proceedings followed how quickly did the banks back down, pay us our money AND REMOVED the default as they knew it had been issued wrongly? Everyone of them has. 3 times i asked Experian to query my default with HSBC and they came back each time and said they say it is correct. It wasnt till i told HSBC that i wouldnt drop the case till they paid me my money and remove the default would i stop the case. Now even though HSBC claimed they were right they still gave me my money plus another £958 what i wasn't asking for and remove the default within 7 days cause they say they are right. LOL Now why would they do this if they believed they were right? Cause they believed they were right but when really the LAW states they are wrong.

 

Now it is the turn of the other people like Mobile Phone companies and some other orgnanisations who haven't come across the ammount of people who are going to stick to their guns like they did with the banks and take their BullSh!te and put it back up where the sun don't shine when it actually comes to what the Law states and not what they believe.

 

Finally i agree with what Tinks said a few pages ago and this should be the case and the CRAs should really follow this line.

 

How about the CRA's operating a policy of innocent until proven guilty, as opposed to guilty until proven inocent ? :rolleyes:

If you find this info useful please click on the scales in the bottom left corner of the thread :wink:

 

Vodafone To Remove Default Notices thread

Paid In Full HSBC Was Claiming £3851.42 But Instead of Paying Me Decided to pay my £4900 Loan OffDG Solictors. Need Help

Concluded Lloyds TSB 27/05/2006 Action Against LloydsTSB

Concluded Lloyds TSB for Girlfriend. 27/05/2006

Paid In Full Capital One £160 Settled

Paid In Full Capital One Sent 15/05/06 for £1372 for Girlfriend

Paid In Full Cetelem £130 Settled

Paid In Full The AA £400 Settled

Paid In Full First National £160 Settled

PDA LloydsTsb Credit Card Hand Delivered 26/04/06 £180

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...