Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi T911 and welcome to CAG. As you say, an interesting screw up. So much for quality control! Anyway, our regular advice is to ignore all of their increasingly threatening missives... UNLESS you get a letter of claim, then come back here and we'll help you write a "snotty letter" to help them decide whether to take it any further with their stoopid pics. If you get mail you're unsure of, just upload it for the team to have a look.
    • Thanks @lolerzthat's an extremely helpful post. There is no mention of a permit scheme in the lease and likewise, no variation was made to bring this system in. I recall seeing something like a quiet enjoyment clause, but will need to re-read it and confirm. VERY interesting point on the 1987 Act. There hasn't been an AGM in years and I've tried to get one to start to no avail. However, I'll aim to find out more about how the PPC was brought in and revert. Can I test with you and others on the logic of not parking for a few months? I'm ready to fight OPS, so if they go nuclear on me then surely it doesn't matter? I assume that I will keep getting PCNs as long as I live here, so it doesn't make sense for me to change the way that I park?  Unless... You are suggesting that having 5 or so outstanding PCNs, will negatively affect any court case e.g. through bad optics? Or are we trying to force their hand to go to court with only 2 outstanding PCNs?
    • That is so very tempting.   They are doing my annual review as we speak and I'm waiting for their response once I have it I will consider my next steps.    The debt camel website mentioned above is amzing and helping to. Education me alot    
    • Sending you a big hug. I’m sorry your going through this. The letters they send sound aweful, and the waiting game for them to stop. But these guys seem so knowledgable and these letters should stop. Hang in there, and keep in touch. Don’t feel alone 
    • In my time I've never seen a payout/commission from a PPC to a landlord/MA. Normally the installation of all the cameras/payment of warden patrols etc is free but PPCs keep 100% of the ticket revenue. Not saying it doesn't happen mind. I've done some more digging on this: Remember, what your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If your lease doesn't mention a parking scheme/employment of a PPC/Paying PCNs etc you're under no legal obligation to play along to the PPC's or the MA's "Terms and conditions". I highly doubt your lease had a variation in place to bring in this permit system. Your lease will likely have a "quiet enjoyment" clause for your demised space and the common areas and having to fight a PPC/MA just to park would breach that. Your lease has supremacy of contract, but I do agree it's worth keeping cool and not parking there (and hence getting PCNs) for a couple months just so that the PPC doesn't get blinded by greed and go nuclear on you if you have 4 or 5 PCNs outstanding. At your next AGM, bring it up that the parking controls need to be removed and mention the legal reasons why. One reason is that under S37(5b) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,  more than 75% of leaseholders and/or the landlord would have needed to agree, and less than 10% opposed, for the variation to take place. I highly doubt a ballot even happened before the PPC was bought in so OPS even being there is unlawful, breaching the terms of your lease. In this legal sense,  the communal vote of the "directors" of the freehold company would have counted for ONE vote of however many flats there are (leases/tenants) + 1 (landlord). It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.  
  • 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

Late Payment Markers - more than a dozen '6's


DBY
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4235 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

Oh ok I didn't realise that, I will give them a while longer. No didn't write Formal Complaint anywhere. Hopefully when and if they reply I can go from there and actually see what the score is.

 

See as I havn't spoken to them for nearly 7 years i'm not too hopeful of them replying anyway tbh. But I live in hope!!!

 

Thanks for the advice :-)

 

Well, for what it's worth, my suggestion would be to give them another week (21 days ought to be enough for an initial reply). If you have not heard anything by then send them a copy of the letter, with a covering letter stating that you have not had a response, that you know it was received by them (give the Royal Mail Tracking number), and that you wish them to consider it as a "FORMAL COMPLAINT".

 

Send it to:

Compliance Department

Welcome Financial Services Limited

Mere Way

Ruddington Fields Business Park

Ruddington

Nottingham

NG11 6NZ

(How sad am I, I've just done that address from memory? Someone please correct me if I've got it wrong!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been reading the technical guidance notes again and found this VERY interesting:

 

'Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an agreement exists and to support filing a default. We would also expect a lender to be able to produce evidence to justify a default record they had placed on a credit reference file.'

 

I'm now wondering if this is why the default never occured. I doubt WF have any of the original paper work to my agreement??? I CCA'd them a year ago and never got a reply.....mmm the plot thickens!!

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As WF only exists (virtually in adminstration) to collect oustanding and very

often extremely old book debts, it's useful to them to have ''live'' accounts

to chase up, it amounts to using the CRAs as a filing system.

 

Many companies in this situation have similar situations.

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

Does someone physically update this markers on the CRA or do you think its done automatically?

 

What do WF have to gain by having these old accounts open or do you think it's done out of spite? And also my debt has not been chased for 6+ years.. seems strange.

 

:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same problem with WF. My last payment was 01/09 and its all 6's until last week when it went to an 8 and now its defaulted. When surely this should have been done back in 2009. I have read all posts here and think I will send them the letter above. I can't have this on file for another 5 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to be typical of WF and totally unfair, it seems as if WF want to bring as much misery for as long as possible!!

 

Yes definately complain as Brigidier says the more people complain about this the more chance we have of winning!!! Go for it and send to the Nottingham address to The Compliance Officer.

 

Good luck, and let us know the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes get complaining I have sent 11 complaints in 2 weeks and copied them to the regulators.

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

  • 2 months later...

SUCCESS!!!!!!

 

Hi everyone,

 

Thought you would like an update!

 

After complaining to the ICO it appears it has worked! I checked my credit file today and Welcome Finance have updated it where as it was showing 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 for the last 6 years!! It is now showing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 for the last 6 years and is green!!!! The debt is also statute barred.

 

My credit score has gone from 320 to the dizzy heights of 750!!! Not amazing but a good start!!

 

I should recieve a letter from the ICO soon to explain what was done. They wrote to me a few weeks ago to say that I had a case and they were dealing with it.

 

My advice if anyone is having this problem then please complain to the ICO, it worked for me and this issue has been going on for 6 and half years.

 

Thanks for all the advice guys I am one happy person today!!!! :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's good to hear NN1. I must chase Welcome again for my own report. Currently they've had more than the 8 weeks that I know I must leave before going to FOS, but the reporting issue was wrapped up in one complaint that included other matters.

 

Interesting to note that you went to ICO rather than FOS. I suppose that makes sense since you were quoting the ICO Technical Guidance at them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Data errors on cra files is a matter for the ICO, to use FOS one must exhaust all other avenues to resolve a problem.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...