Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OC 's don't do court   dx  
    • you will also need a copy of the CCJ and the particulars of claim on the claimform as... you'll need the particulars of claim as we don't know the judgement sum nor if post judgemental interest was allowed. did you defend it? did you ignore it? did you not get it?  did you know nothing about it?   its very rare on welcome debt either taken to court by welcome (doubtful in 2013) or a DCA (more likely)  i will suggest the debt was already at £18k before the CCJ so nothing bar court charges were added   please advise  i love bashing welcome and DCA but we can't help until we know our actual target and who did what and when.                
    • Janet Yellen confirmed as first female US Treasury secretary in Senate vote View the full article
    • I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread. I have an awful lot going on.   I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airport  ByeLaws 2020. which will help you no end.     https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/board-approved-london-southend-airport-byelaws-100220-d14ca659.pdf   If you go to Section 5  the headline reads 5. Prohibited acts on parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:   In other words the roads on the airport are either governed by the Road Traffic Act or the airport Byelaws- neither of which are classed as relevant land. Therefore PoFA DOES NOT APPLY throughout the airport.   Take a copy for the Court and point out that the VCS WS is somewhat lacking in accuracy. It is inconceivable that VCS have not read the Byelaws since they are operating there.    So looking at their WS it reminds me that a good few years ago it was said about the WSs of  parking companies that they and their lawyers simply do not care about the truth and are content with regularly supplying false information to the courts, happy that they will not produce a witness to defend their porkie pies, and that nothing bad will therefore happen to them.   This practice should stop since were the authors to have to appear in Court and challenged, their perjury would not only be clear to see but it would put a stop to the practice. If they don't turn up in Court they get away with their lies and are able to repeat them ad nauseam. And this WS is full of lies and misdirections -not that you can say in Court they are lies but you can point out where there is contradictions shall we say and let the Judge decide.    The WS says in point 31 that they robustly deny that their sign is prohibitive.    You could point out that  District Justice Glenn  in Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), at the High Wycombe Court said    “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach.   The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway.   It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.   All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”   And of course VCS cannot sue for trespass as they are not the landowners.  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2715 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Ok, here is letter number 1. This one is for Satans. I will, hopefully, being doing the one for westies after tea. My one concern is point number 2 - I do not want them trying to say that this is admission of the debt. Anyone's thoughts on this?

 

Ref: use theirs.

 

Dear xxxxxxxxx

 

Thank you for your letter of ,received .

 

I have a number of comments to make regarding the conduct of Santander in this matter.

 

1.The recording of a default date as inaccurate as has happened in this case isextremely serious and could indicate either misuse of the data and/or grossincompetence. Under the circumstances, Iwant to know the name of the organisation and the individual within thatorganisation who was allowed to change my credit report in such a way as toreopen a closed account and show an expired default as one that had occurred inFebruary of this year. I see no reasonwhy this information should not be forthcoming as it was undertaken sorecently.

2.The statement in your letter dated xx xx xxxx regarding the need to make apayment plan with Wescot Credit services is at least made with little knowledgeof the status of the account or at worst a deliberate attempt to persuade me tomake a payment on an account that is STATUTE BARRED!! As for the amount at default being correct, Iwill dispute this as even a cursory glance of the information sent to mefollowing my SAR request shows that the bulk of the amount is made up of bankcharges.

3.The offer of £60.00 I consider derisory in these circumstances, given the time,trouble and stress involved in my having to deal with this matter. To date, I have not received the cheque fromyourselves, however should it arrive I shall be returning it forthwith with acovering letter of explanation. Takingeverything into consideration such as satan's mishandling of informationabout the account over 6 years ago; the recent serious manipulation of mycredit report; the bank charges on the account making up the bulk of thedefault amount, and the non-compliance of my request for a SAR (see point 4), itwould take considerably more than £60 to ‘restore’ my faith in Santander.

4. With regard to my request for a SAR, my firstrequest was totally ignored and I received absolutely nothing in reply, letalone a response withing the 40 day time limit. Even my second request took over two weeks to arrive. Under the circumstances I think Santander should considerrefunding me the £10 it cost me for the postal order to pay for the SAR. I have proof of the requests made in the formof the Recorded Delivery receipts along with signatures of receipt from Santander employees.

Ilook forward to receiving the information I have requested, which when received,will enable me to consider my complaint to the Ombudsman Service moreclearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, Point 1. I would not expect the bank to reveal an individual employees name as an employer has a duty to protect its staff, the company shoulders liability for errors made by employees.

2. If the default sum consists of charges without which the account would not have been defaulted The ICO says no default should be placed.

3. Financial redress MUST reflect the degree of work/time stress and inconvenience causes by the wrongful actions of the bank and also the damage done to my credit profile.

I believe a sum of £1250 to £1500 is appropriate here, plus a sum of £100 for disbursement postage (recoded delivery) credit file checks and statutory fees.

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

Thank you for the pointers Brig. I shall change point one, and request that they tell me which organisation changed the information (my money is on westies, as it was done soon after the debt was passed to them).

 

Not sure what I should put for point 2 as it is possible that without the amount of charges it might have been paid off, but as I was not aware of the account at the time then I can't say this for sure. Unfortunately, the SAR that they sent only goes back to about July 2006 so I don't know what was added before that, however every debit on the account after that date, without exception, is a bank charge. There are no withdrawals by either myself or Mr B up until they closed the account and there is only one credit which was August 2006. How would it sound if I added a sentence to the end of point 2: " It is more than likely that had all these bank charges not been applied then the default would not have occured. Under such circumstances, the ICO states that no default should have been placed". My concern though is that they will try to say that this is an admission of the debt.

 

With point three, again I could add a piece at the end. What do you think about trying to get them to write the debt off??? I could put something like, "With the amount of time and stress I have endured over Santander's wrongful actions, the damage done to my credit file/rating, and the time and costs involved in writing and sending letters by Recorded Delivery, as well as reclaiming any bank charges, a more fitting response from Santander would be to offer to cancel the amount on the account.

 

You might be able to word that better than me. I can't really charge for any credit file searches as I only use Noddle and they're free!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS. HAVING HAD THE ACCOUNT REMOVED LAST MONTH BY SANTANDER, I HAVE JUST CHECKED MY LATEST CREDIT FILE THAT CAME OUT TODAY AND IT HAS MADE A REAPPEARANCE WITH A DEFAULT DATE OF APRIL 2013. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THIS IS NOW GROSS MANIPULATION OF MY CREDIT REPORT.

 

I HAVE WRITTEN PROOF FROM SANTANDER THAT THE ACCOUNT HAS EXPIRED, SO JUST WHO IS DOING THIS. SANTANDER REMOVED IT AND NOW AFTER A MONTH OF BEING GONE IT IS BACK AGAIN.

 

My letter above will now have to be rewritten as I am NOT letting them off with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see no reason why they should not be made to investigate why they have been so incompetent and arrogant in their dealings with you.. So yes, make an official complaint to Satan's bank :)

 

Absolutely no way that I am NOT going to make an official complaint now!!

 

Here is my offering to them. Again, any suggestions, responses etc all gratefully received :-) They truly have absolutely no idea how angry I am with them. FAO Brig - I have added sentences to the relevant points as you suggested above.

 

Dear nobody

 

Since receiving your letter, I have checked my latest credit report and found to my absolute horror and disgust that, having been removed for just one month, this account has been reinstated on my creditreport yet again as an open account and this time with a default date of April 2013. I attach a copy of this. I am absolutely horrified that having agreed that the account is closed, the default has expired and the account would be removed, you have actually allowed even further gross manipulation of my credit report to take place. This is causing me immense stress and anxiety and I now expect Santander immediately to completely remove the incorrect information (again) and to notify me of this in writing with a full apology at the very least.

 

The following points relate not only to the above, but to my original letter to you:

 

1.The recording of a default date as inaccurate as has happened in this case is extremely serious and could indicate either misuse of the data and/or gross incompetence, especially as Santander have now allowed this to happen more than once for the same account. Under the circumstances, I want to know the name of the organisation that was allowed to change my credit report in such a way as to reopen a closed account and show an expired default as one that had occurred in February 2013 and then to reinstate it again as an open account that defaulted in April 2013 after it had been removed. I see no reason why this information should not be forthcoming as it was undertaken so recently.

 

2.The statement in your letter dated xxxxx regarding the need to make a payment plan with westie is at least made with little knowledge of the status of the account or at worst a deliberate attempt to persuade me to make a payment on an account that is STATUTE BARRED. As for the amount at default being correct, I will dispute this as even a cursory glance of the information sent to me following my SAR request shows that the bulk of the amount is made up of bank charges. It is more than likely that had all these bank charges not been applied then the default would not have occured. Under such circumstances, the ICO states that no default should have been placed.

 

3.The offer of £60.00 I consider derisory in these circumstances, given the time, trouble and considerable amount of stress involved in my having to deal with this matter. To date, I have not received the cheque from yourselves, however should it arrive I shall be returning it forthwith with a covering letter of explanation. Taking everything into consideration such as Satan’s mishandling of information about the account over 6 years ago; the two recent serious manipulations of my credit report; the bank charges on the account making up the bulk of the default amount, and the non-compliance of my request for a SAR (see point 4), it would take considerably more than £60 to go towards ‘restoring my faith’ in Satans Bank. Infact, you have quite successfully succeeded in ensuring that I now have absolutely no faith whatsoever in Satans Bank. With the amount of time and stress I have endured over Satan’s wrongful actions, the damage done to my credit file/rating, and the time and costs involved as well as reclaiming any bank charges, a more fitting response from Santander would be to offer to cancel the amount on the account altogether.

 

4. With regard to my request for a SAR, my first request was totally ignored and I received absolutely nothing in reply, let alone a response within the 40 day time limit. Even my second request took over two weeks to arrive. Another gesture I think Satans should consider is adding a refund of the £10 it cost me for the postal order to pay for the SAR to any financial redress. I have proof of the requests made in the form of the Recorded Delivery receipts along with signatures of receipt from Satans employees.

 

I refer to the final sentence of you letter of 4 April 2013, which says, and I quote, “We always aim to provide the highest level of customer service, the concern you raised is invaluable in helping us to improve and deliver a first class service”. As I feel that I have yet to receive anything even approaching a third class service from Satans, under the circumstances I expect a fast and very positive response to my correspondence.

 

Yours unforgivingly

Mrs Blackadder (we bite, you know).

 

 

Brig, I have to thank you yet again for your help and support. Everytime I think I can't manage to deal with this, I think of you slaving over a hot computer, giving your time to help the likes of me, and it spurs me on a bit more :-)

 

I think I will have to leave the letter to westies until tomorrow. Sadly, that huge pile of ironing is shouting at me so I'd better respond to it before it takes itself off to the charity shop :lol:

Edited by Mrs E Blackadder
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wescot have written again!

 

Unfortunately their offer of a reduction on the amount has expired (oh dear) but they are happy to come to an agreement on a repayment plan.

 

All we have to do is phone them.

 

I can only assume that they really do know that they are chasing something that's statute barred,

or else why would they be being so kind and generous?

 

Still, they are going to get a letter in the next couple of days informing them that they can go take a very long walk off a very short plank,

and that I am quite aware that my credit report has been seriously tampered with. Will post up the letter asap.

 

Anyone have any views on the above couple of posts? Would love to know if anyone else has had their credit report tampered with in this way, and what they did about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mrs B,

 

I am in the midst of challenging and advising on just this sort of manipulation of CRA files, an have done so many times before, it can be done and successfully!

SB letter away yet?

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

Have just finished putting the finishing touches to it. What do you reckon? Hope I've covered all the bases with the minimum of fuss.

 

Don't know if you have read a few posts up, Brig, but Satans had the account removed from my credit report. It was gone for a month, but this month it has been put back on again and made to look as if the default was this April. I'm sure it's actually Wescot who are doing this as it seems to coincide with letters from them, but they are acting on behalf of satans. Surely, whoever is doing this, they can't possibly re-instate a statute barred account? I have also made a formal complaint to Noddle and as I have a letter from them confirming it had been removed last month I'm hoping they will take it seriously.

 

Anyway, here's my letter to westies:

 

 

Forthe personal attention of The Compliance Manager, Wescot Credit Services.

 

Re: Reference xxxxxxx

 

date xxxxxxx

 

 

To whom it may concern

 

 

I refer to recent communication from Wescot regarding an alleged debt relating to an account with satans. Please note that this letter in not acknowledgment of or admission of any liability to Wescot Credit Services or any company it may claim to represent.

 

Please refer to the letter of xxxxx in which you were informed that this debt is statute barred. Find now enclosed a copy of a letter from Satans confirming that this is indeed the case, therefore no payment or offer of payment will be made now or in the future. You are aware that the onus of providing unequivocal proof of the status of the account fell entirely on yourselves, although you have failed to do this and therefore have put the onus back onto the customer. This is against OFT guidelines. It is also irrelevant how much was owed at the time of default of the account, the default has now expired and the debt is statute barred. Also, as previously requested, stop writing to Mr B at the address that you have because it is incorrect, he is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a resident at the address and you have been notified of this in earlier correspondence.

 

Earlier this year, credit reports relating to this account were changed to alter the status of the account showing it as open (when it was infact closedand had been for several years). A default date of xxxx 2013 had been entered. As you can see from satan’s letter, they are fully aware of this fact and agreed to remove the account from any credit reports due to its expired status. The account was removed by satans as they promised to do, however within days of this being done it has again been reinstated, as an open account, and an attempt to make the default date appear to be April 2013 has been made. This is an extremely serious case of manipulation of a credit report and an official complaint has been made to satans, along with a request for them look into who made these changes. Once they have notified me exactly who is responsible for such a serious manipulation of information, all details relating to this subject will be referred to the relevant authorities.

 

Wescot Credit Services will now cease to process all data relating to this matter and remove it from its records immediately. I am sure that your company is more than aware of OFT guidelines on pursuing statute barred debt.

 

This is the final response on this matter.

 

 

Also Brig, would you mind casting an eye over the letter to satans in post 130 above. I hope I have covered all the points, but a glance from your expert eye would certainly be appreciated :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking a look!

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

Need to digest all this Mrs B and will get back to you tomorrow if that's ok.

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

Yes Brig, that's absolutely fine. There is rather a lot there... 1 letter to satans, 1 letter to westies and info about how the satans account has made a miraculous return to the land of credit reports!!

 

I'm just grateful that you are good enough to help out. Could not possibly manage to deal with this by myself.

 

Mrs B x

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Brig, that's absolutely fine. There is rather a lot there... 1 letter to satans, 1 letter to westies and info about how the satans account has made a miraculous return to the land of credit reports!!

 

I'm just grateful that you are good enough to help out. Could not possibly manage to deal with this by myself.

 

Mrs B x

 

Happy to help!!

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, don't want to push you as I'm sure you're extremely busy, but just wondering if you have had time to look at the letters? I'm hoping to get them sent tomorrow - don't want to leave it too much longer incase they think I've lost interest in them!! Really just want to know that they make sense and that I've not landed myself in it in some way, such as them trying to say I admit to the debt - that kind of thing. I'm certainly not going to let them get away with trying to reinstate the account on my credit report, I think that's the kind of thing the ICO would be interested in.

 

Grateful as usual,

Mrs B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mrs B I think you can get those away tomorrow with out any problem.

Sorry about the delay!!

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

Cheers, Brig! I doubt either organisation is going to give in without a fight, but they are both in the wrong. Out of interest, what do I do if westcot continues to write following this letter; after all, I have now told them twice that the debt is statute barred and made it clear that I know that my credit report has been altered twice, but without actually accusing them of it. Presumably, once they have been given proof that the debt is statute barred they should stop making contact?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow 14 days for them to find someone beyond Janet & John book 1 reading level:jaw:

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
Janet and John. Now there's a blast from the past!!

 

I am from the past:madgrin:

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
If you remember Janet & John we must be of a similar age - it suddenly creeps up on you just how old you are!!

 

120 ++:madgrin:

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've just had my 119th birthday - or does it just feel like that because of all the stress caused by naffin' satans and their partners in crime?!!!

 

If you remember Janet and John you probably don't remember the Ladybird Reading Scheme which came in about the time that J&J were being phased out. I loved the Ladybird characters; Peter, Jane and Pat the dog. They were delightfully middle class and gave us all something to aspire to, namely owning a lovely semi-detached on a new housing development and, the icing on the cake, a Ford Cortina. No wonder we've all got problems now :lol:

 

Now waiting for replies from the relevant parties, so will let you know when they arrive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell Mrs B reckon I can beat 119 years by some way at the moment!!:madgrin:, yep my kids loved the ladybird books.

Looking forward to some good results!

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 weeks later...

Today, for some reason, I have received a bundle of information claiming to have been sent following my SAR request to satans. My request was made last September - I never received anything within the 40 days so made a complaint. Two weeks later they sent me what I considered to be the result of my SAR request. This bundle has now been sent, I suspect, because of my letter of complaint about, well everything to do with satans really!! It must have taken an elephant to deliver it, let alone the postman, so proves that my original request was not complied with. I haven't had time to go through it all, but a few things jump out.

 

a) Most of it makes no sense to me whatsoever! They are probably relying on this whenever they send a SAR to anyone.

b) Satans have sent me a copy of their letter that was in response to my original letter to them regarding the default date. It differs from the one I actually received in that punctuation and grammar have been amended.

c) There are letters that Moorcroft claim to have sent (Moorcroft had the debt before it was passed to Wescot) but they are not copies of the actual letters, they are nothing more than the template letters that might have been used.

d) There is an interesting email from one satans employee to another inwhich the question is raised as to whether or not Wescot can still pursue the debt even though the default has expired. The reply comes back that yes they can, unless it is statute barred. Obviously they don't consider an expired default date to equal it being statute barred! I, however, take it as proof that they should know full well what the circumstances are.

 

I can't see anything from the information that changes anything, but I will just have to wait until I receive their reply. Part of me wants to write and say "why have you sent me all this information now? It is at least 9 months from my original request and is an enormous amount more than I did eventually receive earlier this year". I would also love to send them a copy of the letter they sent me, along with their amended version and ask them why I got the 'friday afternoon' version! Maybe I'm just being pedantic though:lol:

 

Anyway, that's it to date. Just thought I would let you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One point stands out default dates and stat barred dates are not one and the same, all defaults are removed after 6 years so a default may have have been removed but if payments have been made the debt will not be SB, conversely a debt may be statute barred and if the 'life' of the has time to run then it remains on CRA files until the files for the remainder of the six years so the debt was open to collection procedures.

 

Otherwise I cannot see anything that is of help Mrs B.

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 for the comments Brig.

 

Having looked through as much of the info as I can stomach, I have found this email between departments. It says: The account was with recoveries in Jan 2007 and the customer did not pay anything to the balance so the account should have defaulted on 8 Feb 2007 but didn't. This account and flexi account amalgamated to make one balance, account actually defaulted on 5 December 2011 when account was written off. This is an error and the account should have defaulted on 8 feb 2007. emailed cdq to amend as the default should now have expired. Emailed agency queries as not sure Wescot should pursue if default expired.

 

 

They clearly state that they have made a mistake with the default date and I am 100% sure that no payments were made to the account and the only movements made after August 2006 were all made by Satans themselves. This can also easily be seen from the information they sent.

 

I also had a letter from Noddle today, who are obviously as useful as a bucket with a hole in it when it comes to complaining to them. This is the response I got to my complaint that satans have reinstated a closed account as an open one with incorrect dates:

 

Dear Mrs B

 

Thank you for your correspondence regarding satans account xyz.

 

After investigation, satans current account has advised that the disputed entry cannot be amended as per your request and has requested that you provide them with a letter from Santander confirming that this account was closed.

 

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Abbey directly.

 

We trust that this information is explanatory.

 

 

Signed, someone with a stupid name.

 

 

Well, I think it is fair to say that this is less than explanatory. Firstly, it would appear that satans are incapable of checking any information they hold, and are expecting me to get them to write to themselves to confirm something that they should already be able to prove to themselves; how can they possibly not know that the account is close, and the SAR paperwork has an entry that clearly states the account as being closed :roll:. And who the hell are Abbey??? If they are talking about Abbey National then a) they don't exist anymore and b) neither Mr B nor myself have ever had accounts with Abbey National. All this is even more frustrating because satans are dealing with my latest complaint, so you think this would show up to whoever at satans dealt with Noddle.

 

Satans had better hurry up and sort this out, because the information should not be on my credit report and I will be contacting the ICO with a formal complaint and all the paperwork I have that proves my point!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...