Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • dca please.?   Barclays would have marked the A/c Defaulted on or before sale, and issued a default notice a dca debt buyer cannot issue a default notice    send Barclays an sar.   the A/c was opened whilst resident in Scotland that means the debt is statute barred and extinguished,, dead gone parrot. though that has no relevance to a credit file.    
    • scan it all up to one multipage PDF read upload carefully   I suspect its the usual stuff they troll out for vanquis card debt those  application forms are not a credit agreement    lots of previous Lowell claimform threads here to read that explains why.   dx  
    • In late 2014, I received correspondence from a DCA acting on behalf of Barclays, pursuing a student overdraft of around £1k from 2003. I hadn't used this account in many years, well over six, and it is my belief (though, in full honesty,   I can't actually remember, and can't prove anything) that it was closed a couple of years later in around 2004/2005/2006 (and it wasn't on my credit file in 2014), and the overdraft transferred to RBS (an account also closed so long ago that it is long since gone from my credit file. I certainly don't recall using it after 2004, and it was quite common then to transfer student accounts/overdrafts between banks.   I emailed the DCA, stating that I didn't acknowledge the debt, that it would be statute-barred in any case, and requested an original credit agreement. None was forthcoming,   after some back and forth, I invited them to issue proceedings if they felt they had an enforceable credit agreement. They did not respond.   I am currently looking at applying for a mortgage, and have noticed that whilst this account doesn't appear on Equifax or Experian, it is on my TransUnion file, showing as set up in 2003 and defaulted in 2015.   Does anyone have any advice as to what I should do? The 2019 Doyle case might make my contention that it was statute-barred somewhat shakier, though, equally, I haven't heard anything about it in over five years,   I cannot believe that, if the account was not closed/settled in the mid-2000s as I believe, that Barclays would not have issued a default notice before 2015. Does anyone have any advice as to what I should do?   I want this off my credit file, even if the account wasn't closed in 2004, I believe that Barclays/its DCA are trying to pull a fast one by recording a default in January 2015, but given that neither party has any records with which to validate their belief/position, it hardly seems fair that I pay out for something that either doesn't exist or ought to be statute barred? A further point is that whilst it is Barclays, the account was opened at a branch in Scotland (where I lived/studied), where I believe that the Limitation period is five years, so, even if it transpired that the default was legitimately in 2015, would the matter now be statute barred anyway? Or would it be six years given that I now live in England?
    • Hi.   Quick update. I have contacted the FOS and asked for written confirmation of the decision made so that I can take court action.   I have had my Cifas report today. It states.   Barclays Bank registered a 1st party fraud report against me on the 30th May 2019. This is the date they closed my account.   Case Type: Misuse of facility. Reasons: Multiple encashment fraud. Cifas Filing: First party fraud - (Opening an account or other facility for a fraudulent purpose or the fraudulent misuse of an account or facility; or taking out and insurance policy for a fraudulent purpose or the fraudulent misuse of an insurance policy and/or insurance policy documentation)   So, they told the FOS early December that my credit file would be amended and any negative reports would be removed, but as of today the account is still in default with Equifax and I still have the Cifas registered against my name.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2353 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

Hi,

 

Would appreciate some advice on the following matter.

 

I was dismissed for some other substantial reason several months ago and am now negotiating the terms of the COT3 agreement with the Respondent.

 

I agreed to a low settlement award (less than two months salary) on the basis that the dismissal was overturned and the reason for leaving was changed to "by mutual agreement". The Respondent has come back and said that to do this would be misleading and will instead adhere to the standard reference upon any enquiry from any prospective employer.

 

My queries are:

 

1) from a HR perspective, how would this affect me going forward?

 

2) Is this is a reasonable agreement for me? I do believe that I have a strong case.

 

3) If this is not a fair agreement - please could you advise what I should be asking for?

 

Many thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the employer is correct, they cannot mislead prospective employers as to you reason for leaving the company.

The standard response is what I would expect in this situation.

 

You could perhaps negotiate a higher financial deal.


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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard reference would be ok for me. However it also depends on the profession; eg in finance they may have a legal obligation to disclose fraud if asked, for example. So they cannot negotiate it.

 

What line of work, and what "other substantial reason"?


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your prompt reply.

 

Sorry - what I meant was that in return for a low settlement I wanted the Respondent to agree that the original dismissal was overturned on review (without any admission of liability) and put in a new reason of "by mutual agreement" as I wouldn't go back to work for a company that treated me so badly.

 

Could I ask for this instead?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you answer my question first please?

 

industry, and reason for dismissal


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I also check - last time you posted you had a lawyer. What do they say?


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The industry is IT and the reason for dismissal was for some other substantial reason.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My lawyer is sitting on the fence and saying that if I am not happy then I shouldn't go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Respondent said that they had two client complaints where the clients did not feel happy with me and so due to under capacity, they were dismissing me for SOSR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, So personality clash and nothing involving any kind of fraud or assault or suchlike?

 

I would go for an agreed reference which gives a little more than standard. I am sure they can compliment your skillset without going into huge detail over customer management skills.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS the one time I had an agreed reference I wrote the draft of it myself and let them edit it. much quicker.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - there was no fraud. I worked on the client accounts for over one year each and then the clients turned around and said that they didn't like me and wanted someone else to work the account. I was basically the patsy for the client's grievances against the company.

 

It has been suggested to me that instead of going for "leaving by mutual agreement", I should go for a cast iron clause which prevents the Respondent from disclosing the dismissal, making any reference to the dismissal (inferred or otherwise) and will only adhere to the standard reference in all cases.

 

Is this a good idea?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think they could legally do that without leaving themselves liable to a suit from a subsequent employer. E.g., if something happened and they felt it relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggested by whom? I'm guessing not your lawyer! Always consider who is telling you what.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked a friend who is HR manager in a multinational company and she suggested it.

I ran it past my lawyer who also thought it was ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked a friend who is HR manager in a multinational company and she suggested it.

I ran it past my lawyer who also thought it was ok.

 

The reference process involves humans. No idea how you make that cast iron. I also can't see an incentive for the employer who seems t to already have refused an agreed reference.

 

You can ask...


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve by having "leaving by mutual agreement" written on the reference. It looks and sounds rather odd to me. In most circumstances an employer would not usually describe the circumstances under which the employee left, they would normally just confirm the dates of employment.

 

To my eyes "left by mutual agreement" makes it sound like you got a compromise agreement, which is not a great first impression. Personally I would just settle for a standard reference.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree entirely - 'left by mutual agreement' smacks of 'sacked but we agreed not to say so in as many words'

 

Much better to say that you left to pursue other opportunities or (since it is in part the truth) that your position could no longer be guaranteed due to a downturn in work.


Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your replies - it's much appreciated.

 

To clarify, I had initially asked that the the reason for my leaving on my personnel record to be amended to "by mutual agreement". The respondent declined as they said that this would be misleading and leave them open to potential claims from other employers. I accepted this would be misleading.

 

The Respondent offered a standard reference. I was happy to accept this but was concerned that if a verbal reference or form was sent to them for a reference that they should adhere to the standard reference only and there should be no negative inference in their responses.

 

This is what was suggested to me by the HR Manager friend of mine. My Lawyer also thought it was fine and has suggested the following wording:

 

The Respondent will provide, upon receipt of a written request from that party to do so, to any employer, employment agency or prospective employer of the Claimant, a reference in respect of the Claimant in the agreed form as set out in Appendix 1 and the Respondent agrees that no reference will be made either directly or indirectly to the Claimant’s dismissal, reason for dismissal and surrounding circumstances of her dismissal and will deal with all oral enquiries for a reference in a manner consistent with that reference.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, in all situations where information regarding the employment of the Claimant by the Respondent is requested by a third party, the Respondent will only refer to the attached reference.

 

I would be grateful if you could advise if:

 

1) the wording is robust enough

 

2) if this is the position that I should be pursuing?

 

Apologies in advance for my ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious as to why you think a load of random internet strangers will have a more valid opinion that your lawyer friend.

 

I would say "a manner consistent with" is woolly. I'd want a no matter what they are asked, they send this."

 

In turn I'd expect you to sign a "no slagging off he employer" clause.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HR person is my friend and the lawyer prepared the clause. My lawyer didn't have any standard wording for this clause and produced this clause.

 

I was just looking for a fresh perspective to ensure that it was robust enough.

 

Would there be any other clauses that I should look to include to protect myself?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your lawyer's wording is fine and is sufficiently robust. An alternative might be as follows:

 

On receipt of a request from a potential employer, the Company shall provide a written reference in the form set out in [schedule] to this agreement and any oral reference provided will be on no less favourable terms.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your feedback.

 

Are there any other clauses that I should have included in the COT3 to protect myself apart from the Respondent not pursuing me for legal costs?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to see how the Respondent could pursue you for legal costs once a settlement has been agreed. I guess you can ask for a clause stating that the Respondent will not pursue you for legal costs.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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...