Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
    • Thank you for posting their WS. If we start with the actual WS made by the director one would have doubts that they had even read PoFA let alone understood it. Point 10  we only have the word of the director that the contract has been extended. I should have had the corroboration of the Client. Point 12 The Judge HHJ Simkiss was not the usual Judge on motoring cases and his decisions on the necessity of contracts did not align with PoFA. In Schedule 4 [1[ it is quite clearly spelt out- “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b authorised, under or  by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; And the laughable piece of paper from the land owners cannot be described as a contract. I respectfully ask that the case be dismissed as there is no contract. WE do not even know what the parking regulations are which is really basic. It is respectfully asked that without a valid contract the case cannot continue. One would imagine that were there a valid contract it would have been produced.  So the contract that Bank has with the motorist must come from the landowner. Bank on their own cannot impose their own contract. How could a director of a parking company sign a Statement of Truth which included Point 11. Point 14. There is no offer of a contract at the entrance to the car park. Doubtful if it is even an offer to treat. The entrance sign sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Conduct nor is there any indication that ANPR cameras are in force. A major fault and breach of GDPR. Despite the lack of being offered a contract at the entrance [and how anyone could see what was offered by way of a contract in the car park is impossible owing to none of the signs in the WS being at all legible] payment was made for the car to park. A young person in the car made the payment. But before they did that, they helped an elderly lady to make her payment as she was having difficulty. After arranging payment for the lady the young lad made his payment right behind. Unfortunately he entered the old lady's number again rather than paying .for the car he was in. This can be confirmed by looking at the Allow List print out on page 25. The defendant's car arrived at 12.49 and at 12.51 and 12.52  there are two payments for the same vrm. This was also remarked on by the IPC adjudicator when the PCN was appealed.  So it is quite disgraceful that Bank have continued to pursue the Defendant knowing that it was a question of  entering the wrong vrm.  Point 21 The Defendant is not obliged to name the driver, they are only invited to do so under S9[2][e]. Also it is unreasonable to assume that the keeper is the driver. The Courts do not do that for good reason. The keeper in this case does not have a driving licence. Point 22. The Defendant DID make a further appeal which though it was also turned down their reply was very telling and should have led to the charge being dropped were the company not greedy and willing to pursue the Defendant regardless of the evidence they had in their own hands. Point 23 [111] it's a bit rich asking the Defendant to act justly and at proportionate cost while acting completely unjustly themselves and then adding an unlawful 70% on to the invoice. This  is despite PoFA S4[5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9[2][d].  Point 23 [1v] the Director can deny all he wants but the PCN does not comply with PoFA. S9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN only quotes the ANPR arrival and departure times which obviously includes a fair amount of driving between the two cameras. Plus the driver and passengers are a mixture of disabled and aged persons who require more time than just a young fit single driver to exit the car and later re enter. So the ANPR times cannot be the same as the required parking period as stipulated in the ACT. Moreover in S9[2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; You will note that in the PCN the words in parentheses are not included but at the start of Section 9 the word "must" is included. As there are two faults in the PCN it follows that Bank cannot pursue the keeper . And as the driver does not have a driving licence their case must fail on that alone. And that is not even taking into consideration that the payment was made. Point 23 [v] your company is wrong a payment was made. very difficult to prove a cash payment two weeks later when the PCN arrives. However the evidence was in your print out for anyone to see had they actually done due diligence prior to writing to the DVLA. Indeed as the Defendant had paid there was no reasonable cause to have applied for the keeper details. Point 24 the Defendant did not breach the contract. The PCN claimed the Defendant failed to make a payment when they had made a payment.   I haven't finished yet but that is something to start with
    • You don't appeal to anyone. You haven't' received a demand from a statutory body like the council, the police or the courts. It's just a dodgy cowboy company trying it on. You simply don't pay.  In the vast majority of these cases the company deforest the Amazon with threats about how they are going to divert a drone from Ukraine and make it land on your home - but in the end they do nothing.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4980 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

Guest Battleaxe

Tam,

 

This is another one in the coffin of A & L as far as I am concerned. BTW can you have a look at my thread The Smiths v A & L Second Bite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest The Terminator
I have just completed the Section 85 Default notices for MBNA (Alliance & Leicester) and for Capital One (both of us seperate credit cards with this outfit).

 

Do I send them to the Data Controller?

 

I would send them to their legal team

 

There times up next Tuesday so they have committed an offence

 

This is going to make an interesting conversation tomorrow with Bill Wareing, Senior Legal Assistant MBNA. As I have them for non-compliance S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), Compenstation under Section 13 and now the Section 85 and the Section 77-78 CCA (time is up on Friday 26 January 2007), this is going to be fun.

 

It's time to now face the bullies down and fight them with the legislation they thought none of us would uncover.

 

Oh by the way what do they mean by consolidation in Section 85?

 

Basically consolidation means that all the interest you have paid whilst they are in default and mine go's back to 2001/2002 has to be repaid as they are not allowed to profit whilst in default.They will most proberly have to look up the meaning.

 

Hope this also mean our credit files will be cleaned up.

Yes because any defaults would have been illigally administered
Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke with a polic sargeant I know and he said that the police may not deal with it -it should be the county courts!

 

I'll ask him why if you want to know.....

 

County Court known as the Sheriff's Court in Scotland:

County Courts deal with Civil Law such as civil issues relating to family or property law - such as divorce or disputes over land. The County court does not take criminal cases. It hear's more formal cases before a district or circuit judge, and deals with a majority of divorce cases. The judge will be advised by a court clerk on all matters, and will preside over most common law matters. County courts do not generally fit within county boundaries in England and Wales, All property cases up to £30,000, all personal injury claims less than £50,000, and bankruptcy matters are all carried out by the District Judge at the county court. The County Court also hosts the small claims court, where most minor civil matters can be resolved with an informal arbitration.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you spoken to a CID detective or did you speak to the uniformed PG Tips chimp on the desk?

 

Dont expect the chimp to be able to understand anything more complex than the life and death need to record MOT and car insurance details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

rofl

 

:)

Halifax settled

Halifax (again) settled

Nationwide settled

Natwest settled

Don't forget to donate to this site, they gave us the backbone to put up a fight, we've learnt how to reclaim our rights and proved banks are all nothing but........ rubbish <wink>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

Thank you for this Terminator, The MBNA interest goes back 2003, wow nice little nest egg here and the Crap One cards go back 18 months each.

 

2007 is turning into a very fine year.

 

I have the address for the MBNA Legal Team, so now to find the Crap one Legal team's address. I am certainly helping keep the Post Office in business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

Elizabeth 1

 

Thank you, I had the envelopes addressed to their registered office in London, so now have rewritten the envelopes.

 

Oh joy oh happiness, this is going to spike their guns..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically consolidation means that all the interest you have paid whilst they are in default and mine go's back to 2001/2002 has to be repaid as they are not allowed to profit whilst in default.They will most proberly have to look up the meaning.

Yes because any defaults would have been illigally administered

 

Terminator a question re 'whilst they are in default': I assume you are saying that once you issue them with a default notice, then they cannot profit. ie - if you had a Credit Card account from 2001 but only just issued a default, you could not claim interest from 2001 could you?

 

And is this a formal notice such as the Section 85 you kindly supplied for me - question I ask this is what wording would you use once they have not supplied a true agreement under CCA - do you have to formally issue a Default?

 

Thanks

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
Terminator a question re 'whilst they are in default': I assume you are saying that once you issue them with a default notice, then they cannot profit. ie - if you had a Credit Card account from 2001 but only just issued a default, you could not claim interest from 2001 could you?

 

And is this a formal notice such as the Section 85 you kindly supplied for me - question I ask this is what wording would you use once they have not supplied a true agreement under CCA - do you have to formally issue a Default?

 

Thanks

 

If you read S85 it says that a copy of the agreement has to be supplied everytime a new card is issued.So in effect by not supplying a copy of the agreement they are in default and after 30 days they commit an offence.

 

85 Duty on issue of new credit-tokens

(1) Whenever, in connection with a credit-token agreement, a credit-token (other than the first) is given by the creditor to the debtor, the creditor shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it.

(2) If the creditor fails to comply with this section—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

(3) This section does not apply to a small agreement.

So this part of the act is in plain English and interpratated means they cannot profit whilst in default.The notice merely tells them that they are in default .Now all the monies taken whilst they are in default should be paid back and as they have already committed an offence I don't think they would like to go up in front of a judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

I woke up this morning feeling so happy regarding this Section, because Crap One have reneged on everything they have said to me. MBNA have been so smug and trying to settle out of court once they knew the ICO ruled in my favour, so this Section 85 being served on them is added joy. I'm wondering about the nterest we have paid if it will repaid with contractual interest added also, as this is what they charged us over the years. Is my reasoning flawed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
Terminator a question re 'whilst they are in default': I assume you are saying that once you issue them with a default notice, then they cannot profit. ie - if you had a Credit Card account from 2001 but only just issued a default, you could not claim interest from 2001 could you?

 

And is this a formal notice such as the Section 85 you kindly supplied for me - question I ask this is what wording would you use once they have not supplied a true agreement under CCA - do you have to formally issue a Default?

 

Thanks

 

Now there is also something else that falls into our favour.The Limitation Act.They cannot come back and say it is stature barred because it is within the 6 year time limit so if they try and use that don't be fobbed off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Un1boy do you have a copy of the banks T&C this may be your starting point.

 

Hi Term,

 

No - the account was opened 9 years ago when I was 14 and I never signed anything to "upgrade" it.

 

It annoys me, beacsue I haven't done anything wrong - all I did was ask to open another current account and they have declined it and asked that I close all my other accounts - do the banks talk to each other about these claims and stuff?

 

When I asked for a reason, they said they can't give me one because if they tell customers/staff then they can start to manipulate applications to push them through. But, how can I "appeal" a decision, if I don't know how/why it was made?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I woke up this morning feeling so happy regarding this Section, because Crap One have reneged on everything they have said to me. MBNA have been so smug and trying to settle out of court once they knew the Information Commissioners Office ruled in my favour, so this Section 85 being served on them is added joy. I'm wondering about the nterest we have paid if it will repaid with contractual interest added also, as this is what they charged us over the years. Is my reasoning flawed?

 

Section 85 is a very powerful tool indeed, and it seems that the Men In Black have chosen not to deal with the matter. The hide behind the fact that terms and conditions are issued with each card as Simon did at Loyds TSB. Hi Simon.

 

The fact is that the the Terms and Conditions without a copy of the original agreement which enforce them are worth squat. So after the prescribed period they break the law, with all the consquences that that embodies.

 

Consider this, think of the number of cards issued with terms and conditions attached (without the original agreement) when 'chip & pin' was established. It's a ticking bomb.

 

Extend this further, they are in default, the contract is void, they're sharing my data, the CRA have my file within which is data unlawfully disseminated. You can go on and on.

 

I would imagine in all honesty that the MIB do know about section 85, but have done a risk assessment to determine whether it was worth hanging on to the original documentation or not, or to send it on when they should. Up to now they have got away with it, but now that risk assessment will be a nooses around their necks.

 

An interesting observation IKEA have just sent my wife a relacemnt card with terms and conditions attached (on a form printed in June 2006!), not a copy of the original agreement at all, the account was started in 2003!

 

I realise that alot of the readers will say that Stautory Instrument issued in 1983, negates the need to supply a copy of the executed agreemnt because the copy doesn't have to be signed or date by the parties. But and this is what I firmly believe and has proven in my experience to be correct, a piece of paper offered as a 'copy' that has a print date later than when you started the agreement is not a copy of the executed agreement, whereas one that has a print date before may be. They will argue the toss as Simon did, but they will back down.

 

Secondly, under the DPA a subject access request can include a request for a copy of the original agrement since it would be stored in a 'relevant filing system', if they cannot supply it slap a section 77 or 78 on them. This invokes the CCA requirments and offers you the protection of the law and allows you some ammunition and time to organise yourself.

 

I would like to make one thing crystal clear, I am in no way trying or encourageing others to get out of paying legitimate borrowing. What I am doing is encouraging others to use the law to battle for what is thiers. So if interst as been added because they haven't complied with section 85 get it back, they charged you that unlawfully!

 

Mike

If I've helped tip my scales

 

Blair Oliver & Scott, £2500 written off December 2006 Default removed January 2007:D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html

 

Monument, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

Lloyds TSB didn't sign the agreement!

:D

 

Citicards, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

RBS tut, tut!

:rolleyes:

 

Morgan Stanley, oh dear

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

can charges be applied while a debt is in dispute?

 

Nothing can be added to a debt whilst an account is in default.

 

Mike

If I've helped tip my scales

 

Blair Oliver & Scott, £2500 written off December 2006 Default removed January 2007:D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html

 

Monument, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

Lloyds TSB didn't sign the agreement!

:D

 

Citicards, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

RBS tut, tut!

:rolleyes:

 

Morgan Stanley, oh dear

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
can charges be applied while a debt is in dispute?

 

No charges, No interest absolutly "sod all" and once the 12 day period has passed the creditor would have defaulted and would not be able to enforce the agreement until such time as a true copy of the executed agreement is received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right in saying this...

 

"Whilst it remains in dispute the agreement is unenforceable.

Whilst it is unenforceable, no interest is to be added to the account. No action can be taken against me. No adverse credit references or defaults can be listed against me with Credit Reference Agencies. And lastly, I am not obliged to make any further payments to the account. Essentially, the account is ‘held’ as it was on the date of my request (2nd January 2007)."

Im about to send this off TODAY so need a response quick!!!

 

 

Barclays :- Settled March 07:o

 

RBS:- Acct Discharged May 07 :o (chase for more and CRA deletion???):confused:

Barclaycard: - CCA recieved 24/1/07. WOW! :o (GITS!!!) :-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
Just subscribing to this thread - it's taken me two days to read through half of it at the moment. Just a quick question to the Terminator - how did MBNA resolve your S85 default? I haven't got to that bit yet?

 

They haven't.They have about 7 days left before they commit a criminal offence then the fun begins.Especally when their hand is forced to go to court then they can explain to a judge all the other criminal offences I have collated against them.I'm just letting the law take it's course.If you read back a little bit you will see what I mean with the letters I have posted from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, what is the difference between in default and in dispute, I have done my DPA and CCA but have queries re misselling insurance which I have yet to challenge but have challenged the unfair penalty charges.

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best be careful here

 

 

A Default is a legal term

For our puposed it means

 

Failure to do something required by duty (as under a contract or by law):

 

From the creditors purposees it means

 

Failure to comply with the terms of a loan agreement or security agreement esp. with regard to payment of the debt

 

A dispute is a dissagrement over a contract or a term theirin that prents the agreement from being actioned,

 

Clear as mud

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing can be added to a debt whilst an account is in default.

 

Mike

 

Can anyone point me in the direction of where is says they cannot profit whislt in default?

 

Also, how do you go about knowing when cards were issued if you want to use sec 85?

 

And lastly, it says in the defualt notice earlier that you will record the information on their credit files - is this posisble seeing as you do not pay them to subscribe? Would it not bee better to say that you would notify the Bank of England, seeing as it is they whom loan to the banks?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4980 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...