Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am trying to follow your advice in post 21 which suggests the kennels T&Cs are over ruled by the CRA As I understood it , even if the kennel felt they good reason to refuse the dog boarding, which would be a difficult point to argue , as I am unable to get the vet to confirm they said the dog “should “ be ok ,the most the kennel  would be entitled to would be reasonable admin expenses due to refusing to accept the dog . Then I read in you last post , which  to me seems a contradiction . Paragraph 3 suggests a Judge would favour the kennel and its stance ,then paragraph 4 says to deny a refund in unenforceable . Surely if to deny me a refund is unenforceable at common law , then a Judge would have to rule in my favour . So if I continue I need to be sure I am citing the correct sections of the CRA
    • To clear this up !This new ccj claim from cabot/Mortimer is  for  a bank i have no account with.And is obviously trying to make out my older debt is not statute barred.They think i will respond and start the six years all over again for a totally diferent debt. I have no debt with the bank they are claiming against me with. Do people not understand this?
    • The site has a drop down for different postal services, implying the exclusions are based on the service you use, yet when you select different services the exclusions appear to remain the same, and certainly in the case of Parcelforce do not tally with the cover included by Parcelforce.   My P2G account still shows the declaration I made.
    • Finally go  a little time to myself, so knocked the defence from your given examples. How does it look?   1.The claim is for the sum of £882.53 due by the Defendant under the CCA 1974 for a Shop Direct account with the account ref of ********************    2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been complied with.   3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 08/01/18, notice of which has been given to the defendant.   4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £70.60 - The claimant claims the sum of £953.13   #####Defence######   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They have sent an alleged copy dated 28th Jan 2018 from my cpr31.14 request. this is the first time I have seen this letter.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of a legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)   4. On receipt of this claim form I, the Defendant, sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of the said request.   5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimant’s solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.   6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim   7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed   8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.   If you think it's okay, I'll get it put in today.    Thank you for all your help on this. 
  • Our picks


Police checks on partners broke law

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2447 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

Four people have been sacked and 14 resigned as a result of the breaches of data protection laws by police officers and staff in Wales in the last two years.


Full story here

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



I am having great difficulties at the moment which are causing me so much distress.


It became apparent in a letter written to the CSA last September that an ex had accessed my credit file. Earlier that year on a family court my exes barrister said in court that they know all about me using an alias. I thought this was so bizarre as I had never done so. As I won the case I did not pursue it any further. In the September when he stated in his letter to the CSA that I believe he did not think they would share with me sensitive information from my credit file.


I then requested a copy of my credit file from Call Credit. They were actually very helpful. On my credit file my mothers maiden name had been listed as a alias. I have never ever used any mother names so can only think this was a recording error.


In the report there was a search to my credit file that I did not recognise. It was by a firm called N2 Check which is a company owned by Dunn and Bradstreet. I communicated with N2 to be told that the search was done by Call credit their consumer credit provider . Call credit said that N2 would have that data not then, call Credit said that n2 would have it not them.


I made a complaint to the ICO in

November 2012. I wrote to Dunn and Bradstreet to tell them that I was taking action. In March 2013 I received an email from Call Credit telling me that N2 had just informed them that the search was done by a private investigation agency called Hermes Forensic Solutions. I emailed Hermes who did get back to me reasonably quickly to tell me that it was not them that did the search but another company called 1000words. I emailed 1000words and the worker admitted that he had done the search and he was aware that I had not given my consent. Hermes did explain to me that 1000words was a sub contractor to Hermea. They went on to explain that they allowed their sub contractor to do some private work using their n2 account. 1000words refused to name the third party. It was so frustrating knowing that my personal data was being given to third parties. Eventually hermes agreed to intervene and told me who 1000words were providing services for. I could not believe it was yet another private investigation company. I emailed this company and they are insisting that I will have to wait the statutory 40 days before they would reply to my subject access request if they considered it appropriate.


The only way you can do a consumer credit search is with the data subjects request or a court order. Neither of these applied so it must of been a fraudulent search. . 1000words did tell me that they had apologised to N2 back in October for providing a consumer credit search without consent. It is so frustrating all these lies and cover ups. Passing the buck between agencies.



The last agency insisting the 40 days statutory wait before they may or may not disclose who paid them to conduct a search on me are called Neil

Casey Investigations. The whole thing has been an ordeal. My ex has used the data he received to intimidate me.


I hate all this cover up . Why is it so hard to be told who has paid for an unauthorised credit search to be done without consent or a court order.


I have referred the matter to the ICO and am waiting for an enforcement officer to be allocated this case.


Can anyone offer me any advice. The Neil Casey Investigations tell me that they are only required to tell me what information they have stored on me but are not required to tell me who they have passed it onto .


Can somebody advise or have any knowledge about this .


Thanks you

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...