Jump to content


Trashing of my CRF by Link


pumpytums
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3721 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

Back in 2009 I had an account sold to Link, they proceeded to CC as always and discontinued.

 

The account was allegedly passed back to the OC I'm still waiting for the NOA.

 

The OC has now placed a DEFAULT on my CRF, but when Link had the account they too placed a DEFAULT. At present I have 2 DEFAULTS for the same account. The OC has confirmed in writing that Link's DEFAULT was removed but it never was it's still there where it's sat for the last 20+ months for all to see. I have written to the OC and telephoned no joy, I have told them that an entry from Link is present they just repeat it was removed.

 

I'm not bothered about my CRF it had other defaults before Link's addition. I have contacted Link on the phone their response was that they could put it there as the account was in default.

 

My question is if I have asked for the entry to be removed and it's been confirmed it has by the OC who is to blame Link or the OC? Obviously the OC believes it's been removed but it present on 2 of the 3 CRA. I haven't checked the third.

 

There are a few scenarios :-

 

1. The OC requested the entry's removal by Link. Link did not remove it, Link confirmed it was removed to the OC.

2. The OC requested the entry's removal by Link, Link did not remove it. The OC never asked for confirmation.

3. The OC never asked Link to remove the entry.

 

I'm leaning towards the OC to be honest. Someone is telling porkies.

 

Who do I send the letter before action to?

 

In my opinion it became defamation when the OC confirmed it's removal and it wasn't prior to that it could be classed as a mistake. Obviously simple removal is no longer the issue it's gone beyond that.

 

Any help comments will be appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Pumpytums

Edited by pumpytums
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...