Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's genuinely amazing how you managed to rebuke pretty much all of my points without giving a single shred of evidence to prove it. When asked for evidence all you claim is that "it's clear cut" but how is anyone here meant to know if you won't show it?   I agree with this. If you can't convince us, how are you going to convince the judges when this inevitably goes to court?
    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
  • 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

Default Removal Difficulty - carphone warehouse


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4241 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

Hi All,

 

I’m after some advise.

 

I have recently paid for both credit reports from Experiean and Equifax.

Both have good scores

however I have one issue stopping me from obtaining credit I am looking for.

Back in 2009 I got a default for the amount of £129.

I paid this straight away however it is still on my credit file (stated as satisfied)

however will still be on there until Feb 2015.

Everything else on my credit report is down as excellent bar this which is recognised as being very poor.

I’m doing all I can in writing to the carphone warehouse to get this removed however struggling at present.

They are saying to me they will be breaking the law.

As I understand they wouldn’t be breaking the law and is down to their discretion.

Any advice on how best to move forward and get this removed?

 

Cheers,

 

Charlie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome charlieboy.

 

They certainly aren't breaking any law by removing it, it is completely at their discretion. Unfortunately all you can do is appeal to their better nature.

 

You can make a section 10 request stating that it is causing you 'unwarranted and substantial damage or distress', but they can respond that they accepts that being refused a loan might be considered financially damaging, but the effect on the customer is not unwarranted, since sharing information about the customer’s payment history with the agencies is justified and because the customer had been informed in advance that this would happen. The company is therefore entitled to refuse to comply with the notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you say you paid it straight away, was this because you got a default notice?

 

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

urm can be a diff one.

 

if you had a DN and you 'rectified' the issue by 14 days of the 'letter'

then the default should not even be there.

 

sadly, a company only has to show one was sent, rath than a copy f it

as the systems used are mainly automated.

 

an sar to carphone warehouse might show it.

 

though were they actually your provider?

 

does the default show against them on the CRA?

 

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

Yes both experian and equifax show the default as being with carphone warehouse.

I’ve written a number of emails this week and keep getting the same fob off from them.

I’m still awaiting a response to my last email.

It’s frustrating because even though my own stupid fault my profile since then has been excellent.

I have 2 credit cards with leading lenders with nothing outstanding

however this one "small" default is causing me so much bloody grief.

Again thanks for all help and info in helping me getting this resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Conniff & dx,

 

Thanks both for the responses. It became a default in Feb 2009 and was sattisfied June 2009.

 

ok so no dice on the 14 day thingy.

 

have they ever indicated they DID send a dn?

 

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

right so you actually 'did' miss payment or WHY.?

 

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

Yes ive missed the payments.

immaturity, stupidity are words that come to mind.

 

All in all I do take the blame for the situation

 

however, Its a lesson definately learned and me and my family cannot wait until Feb 2015 to sercure the mortgage that we are looking for.

 

We will have missed the rates that are on offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly you are not along

 

many many threads concerning voda doing this

 

IMHO no mobile phone company should ever have the power to prevent a family from getting a mortgege.

 

have you told them the importance of this being remved?

 

like appealling to their better nature?

 

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

Hi dx,

 

See below last email I have sent to them. I am still waiting for them to respond.

 

It is not false information as the default has been on there for some considerable amount of time and has been satisfied for the 3 years.

No law is in place (I have checked with FSA) that the default must stay on there for 6 years,

it is down to the discretion of the company.

No law is being broken by you removing it.

I have been researching this issue all week and spoke with a number of people including financial advisors

and again they see no harm in it being removed it is always down to the discretion of the company.

Given that the default is for such a low amount and has been settled for 3 and a half years

they belived that I would have found it easier than this to get this removed.

I would hope you can appreciate my situation and understand that this is simply something that I cannot leave alone as for the next 2 and a half years

we will be affected by this and will be unable to progress further.

The financial difficulty that we are all experiencing at the moment due to the reccession is difficult for everyone

and all buisnesses and its in situations like this that it doesnt help improve matters.

I would hope that you can understand that

1. It is a small amount and is the only negative factor on my credit file.

2. It has been settled for over 3 and a half years

3. You are not breaking any laws by removing it.

 

I look forward to your prompt response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ICO advice is that defaults for small amounts like this should not have this kind of impact.

 

The mobile company have been made aware countless times that they do.

 

You are correct - they can remove this at any time - if necessary by removing it entirely.

 

If your mobile provider don't remove the default and it does prevent you from getting the mortgage so you don't get the house, it might be worth consulting a solicitor - maybe a no-win no-fee variety & seeing if you can take them to the cleaners (was it fergusson v british gas?)

Edited by 2Grumpy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Thanks for all the responses.

 

It is with carphone warehouse and my service provider was O2. They are still playing hard ball and saying that there is nothing that they can do and I will have to wait another 2 and a half years. I have sent another email back including all the advise I bhave been given from all the responses to this thread. I will await there response. Im more frustrated at myself for obtaining the default in the first place however my credit report on both experian and equifax is excellent apart from the default for £129. It has been settled for 3 and a half years and I just hope that they can show a bit of empify and get this removed. If after there reponse they are still playing hard ball I may try a "no win no fee".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...