Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • and it will be also now written off under age related criteria anyway.
    • @dx100ukThanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe consequences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points? @Man in the middleI've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
    • Been perusing the actual figures on the polls above wondering where the '16% claimed for deform comes from? I understand that there are 'weighted' end results based on secret calculations ...   Probably going to repeat this later, but remember that the ukip/brexit/reform/deform party has ALWAYS had poll speculation FAR better than their actual  performance at elections - by large margins. SO: The labor and Tory votes come largely from simply the people who say they will vote for them - sorted Lab 43% Tory 20%, with maybe another small 1-2% coming from the weightings of the 'not sures' Greens largely get what is declared from 'other' , although with another declared green bit from the 'pressed' question   So as the share of the voting displayed in 'other' granted to reform/deform is around 11%, where does the '16% too often being reported come from? Seems that reform has been granted as beneficiary of effectively ALL the don't knows and wont says, who when pressed didn't actually declare for someone else ... effectively adding 40%+ to their reported polling % - rather strange given their consistent under-performance compared to polling - or perhaps that is the cause of the higher rating eh?   Now I admit the possibility (probability?) of wingers being ashamed of declaring their support for the yuckey lemon end of the spectrum ... but surely  that should affect the 'Torys as well? Maybe the statisticians have simply weighted in that deform wingers are simply more likely to lie?   But - without 'weightings' and assumptions that faragits will get everything that isnt declared as a definite and unequivocal 'not that Piers Morgan' - reform is on around 11% it seems.   Add to that the history of polling a lot less than the hype - and the simple fact that faragit wingers seem to be spread across the country (presumably skulking in their moms spare room despite being 45+) and greens and lib dems seem to be community minded - I think two seats will be an epic result for farage. Hardly the opposition - far more raving wingnut party.   and importantly - Has farage got a home in clacton yet?
    • "as I have no tools available to merge documents, unless you can suggest any free ones that will perform offline merges without watermarking" (which you don't) ... but ok please upload the documents and we'll go from there
  • 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

What, if anything, are Experian admitting here?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4380 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

This was received today from Experian.

 

 

' With regards to =======, I would not disagree with the statement of their Customer Relations Officer. I don't believe that I claimed ======= were responsible for the entry appearing on your credit report or subsequently removing it.

 

I removed the entry from your credit report by entering a "disassociation" at your new address between your name and DOB and the other name and DOB. This helps our database differentiate between the two individuals with similar names but different dates of birth. We already have disassociations in place between you and the other individual at your previous address, but we need to enter a new disassociation if you change address. This is particularly important if the other individual with similar details moves to the address with you, whether temporarily or permanent.'

 

This was in response to an ongoing query as to how a family members credit data keeps appearing on another family members credit file. None of the data is good data and has caused a lot of distress financially, and destruction within the family.

 

Does this sound like Experian are admitting that the fault lies with them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit more background.

 

2011 several defaults were registered against family 1. None of them were his.

Experian + Equifax refused to do anything as the info was provided to them by the lenders.

Contacted all lenders who insisted on proof of ID, copy of reported account from CRA and they, finding that they had put info on the wrong person credit file told Experian & Equifax to remove the data. This took months.

Family 1 & 2 had an already strained relationship which exploded. 2 because he was embarrassed and ashamed. Family 1 because his life plans, financial, employment and living arrangements were severely disrupted because of his apparent bad credit.

Relationship still tender but all CRA's info repaired. Moved house together.

In April 2012 family 1 was refused bank account so he got a copy of his Experian file. There was new additional bad credit that again did not belong to him.

Thus the email.

We had been led to believe by the CRA's that the info was always provided by the lender and could only be changed or removed by the lender. This time, however the data was removed by Experian.

 

Where does family 1 stand with regards to compensation for the numerous defaults etc that he should never of had? All the cases I have read about were against the lenders? But it is starting to look like Experian is to blame for this.

 

I know this is complicated, made even more so when I'm writing as a third party, but any input would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No takers on this? I will carry on updating just in case anybody drops by.

 

Today's letter is from Provident. In it they acknowledge that confirm that family 1 is not their customer and agree that his name has been wrongly linked to the debt. They have removed the details from his credit file (even though Experian has already done this) and state that he will no longer receive any correspondence from their solicitors.

 

They were asked to consider damages for this mistake but have not acknowledged this aspect of the initial complaint letter. This debt was the only adverse data on family 1's credit file. 5 missed payments so not good.

 

I haven't found any specific template for this avenue of claiming but am particularly interested in any info about Kpoharor v Woolwich Building Society 1995 and Durkin v DSG RETAIL LIMITED and HFC BANK PLC . I think I will hunt about a bit longer for info before writing the next letter (s).

 

Previously family 1 had over 10 defaults registered with Experian and Equifax which were not his, so I have several letters to write and want to get them spot on before posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read of Section 13:

 

13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements.

 

(1)An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.

 

 

(2)An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if—

 

 

(a)the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or

 

 

(b)the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes.

 

 

(3)In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned.

 

But also see if the DPA principles allow them a valid defence. It is in the schedules, but can't remember which one.

 

Then also consider any common law negligence if you think no valid defence can apply!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kpoharor v Woolwich Building Society 1995

 

Citation

(1995) Times, 8 December.

Hearing Date

08 December 1995

Court

Court of Appeal.

Judge

Evans and Waite LJJ, and Sir John May.

Summary

The issue arose whether a bank’s customer who was not a trader was entitled to recover substantial rather than nominal damages for loss of business reputation when his cheque was wrongly dishonoured by the bank. Held, the credit rating of an individual was as important for his personal transactions, including mortgages, hire purchase and banking facilities, as it was for a person engaged in trade. In either case there was a presumption of some injury when his cheque was dishonoured by his bank. In such circumstances, an individual could obtain substantial rather than nominal damages in contract for loss of business reputation. There was no binding authority for the proposition that substantial damages were only available if special facts were proved which were known by the bank when the contract was made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...