Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Regretfully it does. Have you actually seen any papers which show what you were charged with (rather than what you were convicted of)? It is unusual not to be “dual charged” but if you were not charged with both, you are where you are. If you had been charged with both offences and providing you were the driver at the time, you could, after performing your SD, have asked the prosecutor to drop the “Fail to Provide” (FtP) charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the speeding charges (you cannot be convicted of speeding unless you plead guilty as they have no evidence you were driving). You will have difficulty defending the FtP charges. In fact, it’s worse than that – you have no chance of successfully defending them at all because the reason you did not respond to the requests is because you did not receive them and that’s entirely your fault. No it’s not correct. Six months from 18/11/23 was 18/5/24 so, unless they were originally charged, the speeding offences are now “timed out.” There is one avenue left open to you. If you perform your SD you must serve it on the court which convicted you. You will then receive a date for a hearing to have the matters heard again. Your only chance of having the matters revert to speeding (and this is only providing you were the driver at the time of those offences) is to plead Not Guilty, attend court and ask the prosecutor (very nicely, explaining what a pillock you know you were for failing to update your  V5C) if (s)he is prepared to raise “out of time” speeding charges, to which you will offer to plead guilty if the FtP charges are dropped.   This is strictly speaking not lawful. Charges have to be raised within six months. Some prosecutors are willing to do it, others are not. But frankly it’s the only avenue open to you. There is a risk with this. I imagine you have been fined £660 (plus surcharge and costs) for each offence. The offence attracts a fine of 1.5 week’s net income and where the court has no information about the defendant’s means a default figure of £440pw is used.  If the prosecutor is not prepared to play ball you can revise your pleas to guilty. A sympathetic court should give you the full discount (one third) for your guilty pleas in these circumstances but they may reduce the discount somewhat. The prosecution may also ask for increased costs (£90 or thereabouts is the figure for a guilty plea). So it may cost you more if you have a decent income (I’ll let you do the sums). But MS90 is an endorsement code which gives insurers a fit of the vapours. One such endorsement will see your premiums double. Two of them will see many insurers refuse to quote you at all. So you really want to exhaust every possibility of avoiding them if you can. One warning: do not pay solicitors silly money to defend you. Making an SD before a solicitor should attract just a nominal sum (perhaps a tenner). That’s all you should pay for. You have no viable defence against the FtP charges and any solicitor suggesting you have is telling you porkies. The offer to do the deal is easily done by yourself and you can save the solicitor’s fees to put towards a few taxis and increased insurance premiums if you are unsuccessful. In the happy event you find out you were "dual charged", let me know and I'll tell you how to proceed. (Seems a bit odd hoping you were charged with four driving offences rather than two, but it's a funny old world!).    
    • Just the sort of people you despise eh Jugg  You would be much happier among your mates in that room with Rayner begging for votes 
    • I see the trial of the real criminal in the Biden Family has started rather than the sham political persecution of Trump    Biden will of course try to distance himself as far as possible to no avail  Even more votes for The Donald🤣    
    • Savings platform Raisin UK is offering a £50 bonus for new customers who sign up for an account.View the full article
    • With Farage back in the news, here's a reminder of his interview with Claire Byrne on Irish TV a few years ago.  
  • 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 
        • 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

BB v The Leeds Losers, experian, Freemans.com, Call credit, Moorcroft, and HBOS


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3860 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

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm glad the Leeds Loosers haven't come my way.... they sound eve stupider than some of the other DCAs, but then they are all stupid to 'create' this industry which only brings misery to people rather than 'helps them get more credit by paying their bills on time'....

 

One day the whole lot will be wiped out... (and that includes the 'invented' links they love...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a letter of apolology. Going to frame it :)

 

Can't wait to have a little fun with them soon though :)

 

Oh, and they guy that signed the letter wrote:

 

"Once again I would like to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and as I believe we have now reached an amicable resolution, I will be closing your complaint. If for any reason you do not believe the matter to be resolved, please come back to me and I will re-open your file."

 

Resolved, is he 'avin a laugh? Eight weeks formal complaints procedure again lowlifes, freemans and experian lol...Then straight to TS, the OFT and the ICO :) And then, if that doesn't sort it, a nice N1 naming tham all as co defendants :)

 

And there was me a few weeks ago whinging that I wasn't having fun with any DCAs...Let the games commence :)

Edited by babybear39
missed a bit
Link to post
Share on other sites

Allegedly, they don't need my permission to view my CRA, even after a letter from them dated 8th October stating that they were closing the file and that it was a mistake between them and freemans.

 

Strange then that the guy that I just spoke to was viewing my CRF!

 

Need help with an N1 please.

 

OOOO, are they gonna wish they never sent a stoopid letter to me!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok folks. I have calmed down enough to start the ball rolling on this.

 

Checked experian when I recieved the letters and all was fine. Checked yesterday and experian have done a strange thing to my CRF. They've suddenly decided to completely change my previous address??? It now appears that I didn't live at my previous address???

 

This is way too much of a coincidence and I will be contacting them on Monday. They also have an address on my file that I've NEVER lived at! Cheeky...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear oh dear! Incorrect info on your CRF, certainly time to exhaust their complaints procedure and have the ICO do a thorough investigation of these imbeciles.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, where's the lowlife fan club?

 

Time to have fun 'cos they've now put TWO...Oops! Make that FIVE entries on my CRF!!!

 

I'm staring at it now in utter disbelief that they, experian and freemans would be so stupid!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had an email from experian this morning stating that they've contacted idiots inc. requesting that they advise the removal of their searches.

 

'Tis a bit strange because most people get stroppy emails but this one wasn't. Wonder if our freinds in leeds, experian and freemans are reading this thread :???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt it has been looked at.:smile:

would have thought that ..JAMES CRT...

would have posted by now,offering to resolve your "concerns"

 

I gave them a HUGE chance but they didn't take.

 

I calculate 3 X at least £1000 and an ICs fine of 'guess' a number', maybe inprisonment for the guilty party whether it be one person or the three companies. Furguson V British Gas Trading comes to mind :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops! I'm selling myself short...

 

5 X £1000 for indiots inc. markers on my CRF

 

1 X £1000 for freemans giving them the wrong info.

 

1 X £1000 for experian registering it all :)

 

Total: Circa £7000+

 

Suing a DCA/OC and Experian - Priceless!

 

For everything else there's mastercard with an unenforceable CCA (JOKE stolen blase from FB).

Edited by babybear39
added a bit
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another letter of apology from Leeds STILL naming the OC as freemans.com lol...

 

There never was an OC as the account never existed ffs!

 

Still waiting for a letter from freemans to confirm this. They have suddenly seen the error of their ways since they refused to do so originally even though they knew the 'account' was a ghost :!:

 

Do they think that a piece of paper is going to stop me suing them?

 

They've told Experian to take off all the info. Whooptydoo!

 

Experian are going to put my adresses back to what they should be and they can't answer as to why that was tampered with!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...