Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. 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;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Nothing but problems and charges,


jo5ephedward5
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2931 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

I emailed the CEO last week and got this response in a matter of hours...wonder how long it will take them to throw it out again...

 

I do hope they can see my side on this occasion.

 

Thank you for your email addressed to Ana Botin, Chief Executive Officer, and for taking the time to bring your concerns to our attention.

 

One of our Executive Complaints Team will be responsible for carrying out an independent review of your complaint in the hope that we can reach an acceptable outcome.

 

Once our review is complete we will provide you with the details of our investigation and the proposed outcome. If you remain unhappy and do not feel we have resolved your complaint to your satisfaction you are entitled to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service as detailed in the attached leaflet.

 

Until our investigation is complete, I do not know what the outcome will be. I do hope however, that we will be able to find a solution that you are happy with.

 

Thank you & kind regards

Denise Moran

Executive Complaints Team

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

WOOHOO!

 

I’ve just had a call from the executive complaints office at Santander and they have been through the ‘entire’ case and concluded that they are at fault – they have now paid off the balance to zero and they have contacted their data controller to remove all adverse history from my credit record – needless to say I’m over the moon with this, it’s been a 12 month slog but I couldn't have done it without CAG.

 

The letter confirming all is going in tonight’s post but assuming it arrives early next week I think this thread can finally be updated to say *won*

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey now that is news.

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

  • 4 weeks later...

Well last week I did finally receive the letter from the CEO complaints office to confirm they were very sorry about everything I’d been through and that the balance would be cleared and their data controller had been contacted to remove the adverse data from my account.

 

I’ve been keeping a close eye on my credit file and yesterday I got an email from Equifax saying there had been a change to my credit file – I’ve just had a look and the change is:

 

‘you’re Santander current account status has changed from ‘D’ (Defaulted) to ‘S’ (Settled).

 

I assumed what they would do would be to remove all evidence of the account existing but what they have done is to change the status, update my address and remove every ‘late’ marker off the history suggesting that it was paid off in full and closed in 2011. Whilst I’m not really sure this is a ‘true reflection’ of my account I’m happy with the result as there is no trace of a default on the account anymore.

 

Thanks everyone for all your help, this thread can now be changed to ‘Won’, but before I go, does anyone think it’s still worth me writing to the Financial Ombudsman to tell them what I’ve been through? Just because I got the right result in the end doesn't mean that Santander have operated in a professionally adequate manner, they destroyed my credit file for over a year, I think that the relevant bodies should be made aware of it.

 

J

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sri without scanning through

 

did satans bank offer any kind of compo with regard to the 'damage'

this has done your credit rating since it was there?

 

don't get me wrong, great result, but, in most of these cases

certainly the ICO etc all end in compo.

 

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

No compensation at the end, I had a couple of small payments in the middle as apologies for their short falls in communication etc as follows:

 

£100 for account 1 as this was a joining incentive which they initially diddled me out of [although I don't consider that compo]

£150 for account 2 to say really sorry we messed up before they closed it and removed it from my file [again, this was technically an account that they already signed off so doesn't count towards this]

£60 for not replying to my complaints in a timely manner.

 

I was refused a mobile phone contract when I wanted to change accounts

as well as a credit card with a zero % rate,

 

both due to my credit file a

 

nd as this was the only blemish on the files they referred to I have to assume it was Santander that were causing it.

 

the other item was a loan from my bank for a car purchase,

I've got a 9k loan at 14% instead of the advertised 5.1% which I'd had on 2 previous loans

- the bank couldn't explain why as I'm a 'perfect' candidate for their lowest rate

however the computer generated results from my credit file was suggesting i was a higher than average risk.

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

then you need to put that in a letter to satans bank about all three.

 

they should be offering compo

they caused these issue as some of them have cost your MONEY!!

 

and are still doing so.

 

p'haps it might be an idea to ask brig to pop in and comment

 

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

I've sent Brig a message so we'll see if he gets 5 mins to take a look...Obviously I'd love some compensation as to say this has been a stressful and costly problem would be an understatement!

 

J

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi J,

 

Just going to read through all of the thread now.

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, a couple of questions please.

 

What actually shows on the CRA files (have you checked all 3 main agencies?) Are LP markers still showing?

I may have missed this so please bear with me! Was there any agreement with Satans Bank to remove all adverse data from CRA files?

From the details in post 56# I agree with dx there is a case for financial redress,.

 

I'll draft a letter for you if you wish.

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

Hi Brig,

 

Satan agreed to remove all adverse data - I assumed this would mean wiping the account all together but they have actually done just that - removed all the negative data so it looks like I had the account for a year with no late payments, no overdraft no default and then closed it - its now marked as settled, there are no LP markers and no whiff of the default - this is reflected on Call Credit and Equifax, the account never showed on Experian in the first place.

 

If you could draft a little something I'd be really grateful for the help.

 

J

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok good!!

 

What level of redress would you consider appropriate? To give me some idea of which way to play this.

 

How long was the adverse data displayed for. What actual financial loss and or disadvantage did you suffer?

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

Hi Brig,

 

Sorry for the delay it’s taken me a couple of days to dig out the information; a summary of the accounts is as follows:

 

Negative data [late payment markers] started to appear on Account 1 in May 2011 as follows:

 

May 2011 - 2 late payments [LPs]

Jun 2011 - 3 LPs

Jul 2011 – 4 LPs

Aug 2011 - 5 LPs

Sept 2011 - Default £718.

 

The default remained for 2 years until September 2013 when Santander wiped all the data back to September 2011 and removed all the late payment markers before this and leaving no trace of a default on my credit file.

 

Negative data started to appeared on account 2 in June 2011 as follows:

 

Jun 2011 - 3 LPs

Jul 2011- 4 LPs

Aug 2011- 5 LPs

Sep 2011 - 6 LPs

Oct 2011 - Default for £1800

 

The default remained for about 2 years until May 2013 when Santander admitted they shouldn’t have given me the account in the first place – they wiped the account completely as if it never existed and it no longer shows on my credit files.

 

Between Sept 2011 and Sept 2013 the accounts status was also listed as gone-away even though I was in full written contact with Santander for over a year.

 

I received the following ‘goodwill’ from Santander:

Account 1 - £100 cheque to say sorry for the terrible switching experience and here’s the £100 incentive you joined for originally.

Account 2 - £150 cheque to say sorry they shouldn’t have given me the account in the first place.

Plus a £60 for not responding in a timely manner [several months].

 

I believe the financial actual repercussions of the above are as follows:

 

In October 2012 I was refused a mobile phone contract with t-mobile based the results on my credit search [this was when I first applied for my files to see what the problem was as to all intents and purposes it should have been clean] – I had to stay with o2 who were £10 per month more expensive, so over 24 months it will cost me around an extra £240.

 

In Feb 2013 I applied for a loan with my long term bank [i wish I’d never considered leaving as they’ve always been brilliant – the things we do for a quick buck!] this was when they said they couldn’t offer me the low rate they have in the past as the credit score was coming back lower than normal – the only blemish was the 2 Santander accounts – this loan is for 42 months so based on the £9600 I borrowed over 42months I’m looking at around £1900 in ‘additional’ interest over their best rate.

 

In May 2013 I applied for an AMEX card with a 0% transfer incentive, this was declined, again due to credit score and Santander was the only blemish I had so I have to believe it was a large influence on their decision. This means I still had 3k on my credit card at 18.9% apr so at the rate I’m clearing it that’s approx. £800 extra interest.

 

I’m not someone that exclusively lives on credit, I have a good income and I’ve worked really hard to get a good credit score – I chose to ‘spread’ payments on a few select things, unfortunately Santander have left me with 3 long term problems which are ultimately going to cost me around 3k in additional interest over the best deals which I can only assume I would have been a prime candidate for.

 

I’m not sure on what redress they are likely to consider appropriate, but the fact is I feel as if I’m out of pocket by 3k – what are peoples thoughts?

 

J

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry Jo Missed this been away for a while.

 

On those instances my feelings are £750 per instance of being declined for credit for the stress and embarrassment caused by the refusal.

Then sums equal to the extra costs incurred because of the adverse data Satans caused to be displayed o CRA files.

Finally I would suggest sum of £1500.00 in regard to the overall time, trouble and stress caused while attempting to settle this matter.

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

Thanks Brig,

 

So to your mind it’s potentially:

 

2x £750 refused credit with t-mobile and AMEX [£1500]

1x £240 extra cost from having to stay with my mobile phone supplier

1x £1900 extra interest from my personal loan

1x £800 extra interest from my credit card

1x £1500 for time, effort, postage and research to fight my corner.

 

So £5940 would be considered a ‘fair’ figure for compensation or have I misinterpreted somewhere?

 

Also how do I go about wording something like this – I assume it has to be to the point, well backed up with evidence and written with the view that if they won’t play ball I should take them to the small claims court?

 

J

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Brig,

 

So to your mind it’s potentially:

 

2x £750 refused credit with t-mobile and AMEX [£1500]

1x £240 extra cost from having to stay with my mobile phone supplier

1x £1900 extra interest from my personal loan

1x £800 extra interest from my credit card

1x £1500 for time, effort, postage and research to fight my corner.

 

So £5940 would be considered a ‘fair’ figure for compensation or have I misinterpreted somewhere?

 

Also how do I go about wording something like this – I assume it has to be to the point, well backed up with evidence and written with the view that if they won’t play ball I should take them to the small claims court?

 

J

 

That is what I would work on it's calculated on the actual financial loss incurred plus compensation for the for the stress and embarrassment of refused credit and takes into consideration the extended time to rectify the matter.

 

It's not making a 'profit' just rectifying actual calculated loss + damages.

 

Very fair I think.

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 I'll get something written up and in the post this week - is there something 'official' to look up / quote when making this claim...I.e some code of conduct that sets out some guidelines on what can be claimed.

 

J

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is needed, as said your 'claim' is for proven loss, and redress for the effort, embarrassment and stress the bank has caused.

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

quick one - should I send this request to the CEO executive complaints team that finally gave me some results or should I fire this to the data controller?

 

Yes! exec team.

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...