Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Trying for Default Removal After Mail Sent To Wrongly Linked Address


bh486
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4914 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.

I'm in a bit of an ongoing battle with a well-known DCA over a mobile phone contract they allege to be mine that went into default in 2007.

 

A default appears on my credit file, but only with Experian, not with CallCredit and not with Experian.

 

The default is at a linked address which is not in any way linked to me at all!

 

I am not sure that the debt is even mine, but for the purposes of the following, can we assume that it is.

 

I have been in touch with the DCA by email stating that I do not acknowledge the debt and that it is linked in error to an address that is not and never has been mine.

 

I have very carefully worded the email asking them to remove the link, and that since it has been linked in error, any mail pertaining to this account either from the DCA or the original creditor has been going to the wrong address, therefore I have not had the opportunity see it and, if the debt is mine, which again I am not acknowledging that it is, I have not therefore had the opportunity to settle it before it has gone into default.

 

I have asked the DCA for a deal. If they can present me with the correct paperwork showing the debt to be mine, I will settle it in full in one payment and in return, since the incorrect address has meant I never received any letters and have not been able to stop it going to default, I have asked that in return they remove the default from my file entirely upon so doing.

 

The DCA has responded stating that should the debt be shown to be mine and the address to be incorrect, they are only prepared to link the debt to the correct address and show it as "satisfied" if I settle as described.

 

As far as I am aware, a "satisfied" default will not alter my credit worthiness to any degree over an unsatisfied default.

 

Their response seems a little unfair given that it is an error not of my making which has caused this to go so far. If the debt is mine, I would have settled it long ago had I been receiving the mail for it.

 

I had been out of the country from end 06 onwards and was only receiving mail redirected from my CORRECT address in UK!!!

 

I have written back suggesting that the DCA's response is a little unfair and giving the reason why I believe it to be so.

 

Does anyone have any idea how I should play this next?

 

Presumably as a mobile phone contract, this IS regulated by the Consumer Credit Act but I CAN'T request a Consumer Credit Agreement?

 

Should this be an SAR request instead?

 

Should this go to the DCA or the original creditor?

 

Assuming that the debt is indeed mine, presumably if they can't provide me with an original and true copy of the Default warning letter within a set period of time they will have to remove the default from my credit file anyway?

 

Is this correct?

 

Does anyone have any advice?

 

Thank you in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus
I am not sure that the debt is even mine, but for the purposes of the following, can we assume that it is.

 

Mmm, but as you say you aren't sure the debt is yours. Then wouldn't it be easier to send them the template letter for this purpose rather than muck about with them ie prove it or don't? Others will possibly have other ideas, but between the lines ...

 

Just wondered if that was a much easier approach rather than the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

Actually, my mistake, you've possibly already done that so you can possibly disregard that.

Presumably as a mobile phone contract, this IS regulated by the Consumer Credit Act but I CAN'T request a Consumer Credit Agreement?

*I'll start again, I am typing in the dark, no lights on yet* There are no CCAs for mobile phone contracts but, as with any other form of contract, you will/would have completed something either online or on paper (in shop etc), so there will be something there. Which they would be obliged to supply, as they are the ones pointing the finger at you rightly or wrongly (going with what you said about assuming for the purposes of this thread the debt was yours).

 

The SAR sounds like a good idea but still wondering about the prove it letter. If only to save you £10. It should surely be on them to prove not the other way round? I am sure you are also aware that there has been plenty of coverage to this kind of problem with mobile phone debts highlighted on many TV consumer programmes lately (I expect one particular one will be soon running more in the run up to Christmas; in all instances, everyone was advised to send the prove it letter or get lost to the DCA concerned; can't prove anything, then what right do you have to ask me for money?).

Edited by Cartaphilus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that.....and for reading my epically long post!

 

I'm going to go for the prove it letter to start with.

 

Can you point me in the right direction of a template, or will this be a DIY job?

 

Should I be asking them for the default warning letter at this stage or just a copy of the agreement? Or something else???

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you 'know of' the incorrect address, or is it something that is a complete 'mystery'. If so, I would be writing to the CRA's that show this as a linked address and request it is removed. They will (or should) know who provided the 'link' and will contact them.

 

Send a SAR to the Original Creditor, and the prove it letter to the DCA. Do not make any further 'offers'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus
Thank you for that.....and for reading my epically long post!
I don't mind how long a post is. If a situation is complex, then posts will inevitably be long. Life can't be condensed or edited. ;) Edited by Cartaphilus
Post crossed so removed part about letters in the library
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Neither of the links in your last post seem to work properly. Can you please have another go? Thanks!

 

Regards the address, it's actually my parent's address, but it was never given to them by me, I have never lived at that address and I have never ever given that address out as my own.

 

I am almost 20 years past the age of 18 so I don't think anyone should be trying to make my folks responsible for my actions!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir or Madam

 

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collectionlink3.gif, which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. AND in not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to Trading Standards and also inform the Office Of Fair Trading of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again - The library was shoving weird things up on my screen earlier but it's OK now.

 

So is this the correct "prove it" letter to send to the DCA?

 

"Name/Address:

 

Date:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I note from a recent view of my credit file that your company has lodged a default stating the above reference number, for a debt which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

Firstly I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

Secondly, the linked address you have provided is not an address I have ever lived at, had mail forwarded to, nor given out as any kind of contact or other address for myself and I would ask that the link be removed immediately unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

 

I/we am/are familiar with the CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection, which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. AND in not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to Trading Standards and also inform the Office Of Fair Trading of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully"

Edited by bh486
Link to post
Share on other sites

You beat me!

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collectionlink3.gif, which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. AND in not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to Trading Standards and also inform the Office Of Fair Trading of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

Edited by bh486
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think of my amendments?

 

 

"Name/Address:

 

Date:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I note from a recent view of my credit file that your company has lodged a default stating the above reference number, for a debt which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

Firstly I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

Secondly, the linked address you have provided is not an address I have ever lived at, had mail forwarded to, nor given out as any kind of contact or other address for myself and I would ask that the link be removed immediately unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

 

I/we am/are familiar with the CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection, which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. AND in not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to Trading Standards and also inform the Office Of Fair Trading of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...