Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive.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? 
    • think about it, if you don't pay the full amount, what more can they do , default you  they've already registered a default notice by that point.  why have you got to await sale to a DCA.... for what?  
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4576 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

Update me please, what information have you

got from JDW, or RW so far.

If nothing wort while I would write to both parties and

simply state that as they have failed to prove the

authenticity of the debt and their right to collect,

you will not enter into further correspondence

of any kind.

This is your FINAL RESPONSE, any further contact

will be considered harassment contrary to the Administration of Justice Act 1970

section 40 (1).

 

Brig.

 

I started receiving demands a few months ago so I sent CCA request.

They replied stating that it did not exist so I sent the account in serious dispute letter which they replied to stating that although they cannot take this through the courts they can still request payment and they have a duty to report to the CRA's.

 

I have heard nothing from them since but being the persistent git I am I wanted to find any way to remove the default from the credit file as I really do NOT believe that this is anything to do with my partner.

 

I am certain that they will not bother harassing us over this as they have admitted in writing no CCA and they can't enforce through the courts but I just wondered if there was anyway I can force either them or the CRA's to remove the default entries as this is obviously damaging my partners credit rating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Only the company that placed

the entries can remove them,

the only way to try to get them to

cooperate is to write again

giving the reasons for requesting removal,

as this comes under compliance address ot to the compliance manager.

Also e-mail the CRA's requesting the removal, and they will also contact

the creditor and ask if it can be removed,they will inform you of the result.

 

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks brigadier.

 

I am in the process of writing a letter as I write this. Any pointers as to what I should include in the letter. i.e. legal or regulatory body references?

 

So far I have stated that after viewing my credit file it is apparent that the debt isn't mine due to the date of birth and I follow on to state that I have never dealt with them or any company they are claiming to represent and demanding the removal of entries on my credit file. I have stated at the end of the letter that failure to comply will result in formal complaints to the relevant authorities and I may consider legal action against robbers way!!

 

Would something basic like this be sufficient or do I need to put any legal references in the letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I''' tell you how I feel about quoting extracts of law in

most cases it's irrelevant and a lot of the time it's not read,

I believe in KISS keep is ''simple stupid''.

When I involved professionally I dread ''barrack room lawyers''.

 

Just state the facts and say what you want.

 

brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I enjoy my work here and professionally.

  • Confused 1

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have finally had a response from experian regarding this.

 

They have stated that RW have responded saying that the entry is correct and will remain on my partners credit file even though they cannot prove the existence of the debt.

 

Based on this any company can place a default marker on anyones credit file and claim it is correct without having to offer anything by way of proof!!!!

 

How the hell do we fight this when companies don't even have to prove that a debt exists or that they are even chasing the correct person for the alleged debt?

 

I'm at a complete loss now with this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stu, you need to take this to the top at RW if they state

they have no evidence of the debt the entry is unfair, so it's complaint

time to OFT and ICO.

Then collate all you paperwork and send a formal complaint to

RW as well addressed to the DATA Controller.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be doing that brig but the problem I have found with RW is they only read what they want to read. I have stated twice now in previous letters that this debt has nothing to do with my partner but each time they reply with "What have you done to return the goods" etc. WHAT ******* GOODS, I've never had anything from these clowns as far as I am aware!!

 

They are really starting to frustrate me now as they seem adamant that they are chasing the correct person but I have even had a letter from them stating that they will not be chasing anymore because I have stated that we are not who they are looking for. I can only assume that they can offer no proof whatsoever regarding who this debt is connected to.

 

I will scan their last letter and post it so you can decide for yourself if they seem certain or not.

 

img027.jpg

 

Does that sound like they are convinced they have the right person????

Edited by sturose
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I'll have a read through that later when my headache has gone!:dizzy:

 

Brig, do you think a modified version of the letter you gave me on my other thread would be ok to use with these clowns? After all it still relates to a default that should be there albeit for different reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I'll have a read through that later when my headache has gone!:dizzy:

 

Brig, do you think a modified version of the letter you gave me on my other thread would be ok to use with these clowns? After all it still relates to a default that should be there albeit for different reasons.

 

it is a bit of a read, but useful.

as you admit, '...it still relates to a default that should be there.......' but...?.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

The justification of a ''default'' its reasonablness, etc is for ever going to be

a matter if conjecture until there is just more than guidance on how, why and

when a default is appropriate.

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

that aside, the ico default guidance is currently relevant and useful. particularly if someone is trying to correct inaccurate default info on their credit files. including when using statute such as s159 cca and/or the data prot act. and complaining, to the ico itself for eg.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

The justification of a ''default'' its reasonablness, etc is for ever going to be

a matter if conjecture until there is just more than guidance on how, why and

when a default is appropriate.

Brig.

 

This is one of the biggest problems IMO. It appears that companies can register a default with very little factual evidence but the consumer whose file had been damaged for years to come will almost certainly NOT get it removed without jumping through many many hoops.

 

I understand that in many, possibly even the majority of cases that defaults are justified and correct but when they are not it is virtually impossible to do anything about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this look Brig, is there anything I should add or remove?

 

Dear Robbers

 

I write in reference to your companies continued posting of default entries on my credit files.

 

I have written to you on numerous occasions stating that I have never dealt with you or any company you claim to represent, however you insist on continuing to post defamatory entries on my credit files. The date of birth is incorrect and therefore cannot relate to myself.

 

This default entry is and has caused me great difficulty and embarrassment in my financial dealings; I therefore require the removal of ALL ENTRIES ON ANY CREDIT REFERENCE AGENCY FORTHWITH.

 

Failure to comply WILL result in a complaint to the ICO, OFT and your local trading standards department without further notice to you.

 

I expect confirmation within 7 working days of the date of this letter, if I do not receive a satisfactory response I WILL take further action.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

I have stated again at the top of the letter in bold 'I do not acknowledge any debt' etc and formal complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would also inc that you seek compensation for the incorrect entries and the harm this has done your availability of cheap credit

 

typically its £1000 per entry!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks, I'll send it tomorrow.

 

Maybe the threat of seeking compensation will be enough to make them think about removing the default.

 

How does this sound after the last line?

 

"I will also seek compensation for the incorrect entries and the damage they have caused to my financial standing"

Edited by sturose
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...