Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its a 12mts contract else why would it say till 2021 and first month..   simply states they don't charge a joining fee clever marketing ploy as people don't read things. it IS a monthly payment, that runs for 12mts.   but anyway there is stuff and all anyone can do to you.   dx        
    • Hi Slick,   Amazingly fast reply, thank you!   According to the reference on the payment it says "ON 24 SEP BCC" and the payment cleared 25th September at 11:26   I was simply told to sign up on the website by a staff member in the gym, no further information was given to me by them. The website stated that it's a rolling monthly membership that could be cancelled at any time "No contract membership JUST £14.99 a month, until 2021*" As far as I am aware there was absolutely no minimum membership length, unless there's some small print I've missed somewhere. But Harlands haven't mentioned anything about me being obliged to pay for a certain length of time so... I've attached a picture to this post of what I signed up for.   Also, I'm not sure if this has any relevance at all but the building is plastered with £9.99/month signs EVERYWHERE yet it costs £14.99 when you go on the website. False advertising 🙄 Could perhaps use that as leverage in a letter if it comes to it, I dunno? 😂
    • I look forward to hearing from a member of the team 
    • Hi Selrahc and welcome to CAG   Please be in no hurry to contact X4Less, Harlands or CRS - they can do nothing for now.   Before you do anything, we need more info. Please confirm :-   1. Approx date you joined.   2. Were you told it was a rolling monthly m/ship by a staff member, or a longer minimum contract.   You have no need to reply to any demand from Harlands/CRS so ignore them for now.
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3487 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

A few months ago I completed a survey commissioned by the ICO on the performance of credit reference agencies. I'm not sure how I got asked to participate but I guess I'm on an ICO mailing list.

 

As part of the response I was asked whether, if I had had an unsatisfactory response to a CRA complaint, I would be prepared for the ICO to share this information with the CRA. Given that I had just had a massive run-in with Equifax, I ticked yes.

 

Over the last couple of days I've had an exchange of messages with Equifax through their online system. The first of these is set out in this post. The second post gives the background to the issue and the basis of my complaints and the third is their response. I've asked for specific opinions in the the third post.

 

Anyway, here is their first message to me:

 

Dear Mr Seminole

 

We've been contacted following a survey you carried out with the Information Commissioner's Office.

 

I understand you've had some issues with your Equifax Credit Report which I'd like to discuss further with you and work to resolve.

 

To do this, please contact me or a member of my team on 0800 917 3035 or by updating this enquiry with any outstanding issues you have and we'll be happy to look into this for you.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Kindest Regards

 

Mandy Russell

Customer Relations

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my reply to them:

 

Thank you for your message.

 

Just over 12 months ago I discovered that First Credit (FC) had searched my credit file. I had not given that company permission to do so. The searches were listed under Table 1 with the narrative description "Outstanding Debt".

 

As I didn't know what this search related to, I contacted your company and you should have a record of the correspondence in this system. I asked why FC had been allowed to search my credit file without my permission. The reply I received stated that you would temporarily remove the search and contact FC. Having done so you then told me that FC had said that the search was valid, you were reinstating it to my credit file and that I should contact FC on a given number.

 

As this was happening FC wrote to me giving me details of the alleged debt. Having checked my records I discovered that it was both a disputed small debt and potentially subject to the Limitation Act. Having invited FC to commence legal proceedings to recover this debt, they withdrew their demand for payment. I then entered into a protracted email correspondence with them to get them to remove the searches from my credit file.

 

I have several complaints against Equifax:

 

1) You allowed these searches to remain on my file when I clearly told you that they should not be there. You took the word of a debt collector and reinstated the searches for a debt that was in serious dispute. I regard your actions as libelous and potentially actionable.

 

2) You denied all responsibility for the data being held on my file. According to the Information Commissioner's Office, credit reference agencies are as responsible for the information shown in credit files as the organisations that provide it. It may not suit you to admit this but it is my understanding of the legal position.

 

3) Leaving aside the issue of whether the searches should have been included in the file at all, you allowed these searches to be listed under table 1. This both affects credit score and is visible to other lenders. My understanding is that "outstanding debt" searches should be shown under table 2. I have not asked this before but I would like to know why FC's searches were shown under table 1. In my opinion, you allowed FC to use a table 1 search as a means of debt collection. In other words, FC registered a search that damaged my credit rating as a way of getting me to contact them. You facilicated this process by registering the search under table 1, refusing to remove it (or accept responsibility for it) and then telling me that I would need to telephone FC to resolve the matter.

 

My experience of this matter has confirmed my view that credit reference agencies have unacceptably close links with the debt collection industry and are in need of better regulation to protect the interests of the consumer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is the reply from them today. I would be interested in any views and, in particular about the use of Table 1 to record 'outstanding debt' searches@:

 

Thank you for your response.

 

Each Equifax client is required to sign a contract prior to gaining access to our system. This contract stipulates that the client in question must seek consent, from the individual concerned, prior to completing a search. Equifax works closely with our clients to ensure that they fully understand this requirement which is specified under the current Data Protection Act.

 

It is the responsibility of the client in question to ensure that this consent is sought and that appropriate records are maintained to substantiate each search completed with Equifax.

 

The consent to undertake these searches is commonly included in the fair processing notices signed by an individual at the point of application for a credit agreement; however, in the cases of trace or outstanding debt searches such as the one you've mentioned, the consent is carried from the point of application for credit to include searches by the company or a debt collection agency who have purchased the debt to attempt to trace the debtor.

 

At the time the search was disputed it was not mentioned in your communication with Equifax that the search related to a debt that was possibly statute barred. Had this been highlighted at a later stage we would have of course re-raised the matter with the company requesting they investigate the updated information.

 

I understand your comments about the dispute process we use to investigate information; however the dispute process used by Equifax and the other Credit Reference Agencies is agreed in conjunction with the Information Commissioner's Office and is in line with current Data Protection legislation. Although Equifax run quality checks on information received, there is certain information which we are unable to independently validate before this is added to our records and in these cases the notice of dispute process is designed to investigate any possible errors. As part of the agreed dispute process the companies are not obligated to provide documentary evidence to support their response and as such Equifax are unable to act to amend or remove data unless the response from the company authorises this.

 

Outstanding Debt searches can show in either Table 1 or Table 2 on a report depending on the likelihood of a correct match to the individual being traced. Those that do show in Table 1 on your credit report do so because although they are not viewable to potential lenders, some of our clients use this data to calculate an automated credit score so in some instances it can have a minor impact on your credit worthiness. The searches in table 2 have no impact on you.

 

I'm sorry that the communication you had with Equifax previously didn't resolve your enquiry and am pleased to learn that the searches have since been removed following your direct contact with the company. If you have any other questions relating to the regulation of the credit reference agencies and the suitability of the dispute process in use, I'm afraid I can only suggest that you direct your comments or queries to the Information Commissioner's Office.

 

Kindest Regards

 

Mandy Russell

Customer Relations

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to launch formal proceedings against equifax over a similar matter and response

 

statute barred debt, breach of cca years previously, search done at linked address when DCA had been contacting me for years at current one

 

DCA response 'phone us to discuss this account'

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Those that do show in Table 1 on your credit report do so because although they are not viewable to potential lenders, some of our clients use this data to calculate an automated credit score so in some instances it can have a minor impact on your credit worthiness.

 

Does this sentence make any sense? Either table 1 searches are accessible to lenders or they are not.

Advice and comments posted by The Debt Star reflect only my personal opinion and it is up to you alone to decide what action you should take. You should always seek independent legal advice from your own qualified legal advisor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Just Subbing, need info on Equifax as sent a Notice of Correction and received a reply say that after communicating with the desputed DCA they have removed the NoC.

 

Regards...

Please note: I have no formal qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Ah - the same Equifax that allows companies like HFO to send copies of reports to people when they shouldn't even be looking at their credit files...? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?292196-HFO-have-sent-me-72-Hrs-notice-of-litigation is my own thread and I note the following:

Each Equifax client is required to sign a contract prior to gaining access to our system. This contract stipulates that the client in question must seek consent, from the individual concerned, prior to completing a search. Equifax works closely with our clients to ensure that they fully understand this requirement which is specified under the current Data Protection Act.

 

It is the responsibility of the client in question to ensure that this consent is sought and that appropriate records are maintained to substantiate each search completed with Equifax.

which tells me that HFO are clearly breaching this agreement and the DPA, even more so as the people looking are in India...

 

Equifax, and the other CRA's, seem to operate to their own version of the various rules and regulations and it's high time they were taken to task about how our data gets mis-used in so many ways, while they just smile and pocket the fees for accessing the database.

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they're not called Equitw4ts for nothing

Advice and comments posted by The Debt Star reflect only my personal opinion and it is up to you alone to decide what action you should take. You should always seek independent legal advice from your own qualified legal advisor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

which tells me that HFO are clearly breaching this agreement and the DPA, even more so as the people looking are in India...

 

Not technically true, please see blurb from ICO website on data protection:

 

You may transfer personal data to countries within the European Economic Area on the same basis as you may transfer it within the UK. However, you may only send it to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area if that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of individuals in relation to processing personal data.

 

Only an offense to transmit personal data outside EEA if it is not done securely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Only an offense to transmit personal data outside EEA if it is not done securely.

I think someone already mentioned that India isn't on the list of secure countries? Apart from them not having the authority to be looking at my data anyway, but that's another point.

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not found evidence that India is on a list of non-secure countires for data transmission (albeit a very brief internet search). With regards to not having authority - does this not stem back to lack of agreement/terms and conditions? I've long argued (and will continue to argue until I'm blue in the face) that no CCA means no proof I consented to original creditors sharing info with CRA/DCA's - however we all know that info will be passed around companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...