Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Been quiet for a bit just received   this  Intrum 15th Nov .pdf
    • Guys, we have three days left in which to respond to this.   While I appreciate all the input we've received, at present we seem to be left with more questions than answers so is anyone in a position to advise what to do next please?
    • The only way I can guess that I Go 4 got my details was through a car insurance search website.  At the time of thisCCJ I insured with the RAC,  THEN THE sAGA.  aT NO POINT DID i TAKE OUT INSURANCE WITH ig4 .  They certainly never wrote to me saying I owed them money.  The debt is for £235., so if I did owe,  I would have paid it,  but I knew nothing about it and to this day have never heard from J C International or IG4.
    • Thank you, just received letter back " acknowledging that the account is now Statute Barred, whilst they do not consider that they have breached any law or regulatory guidelines, the account has been withdrawn from their regular collections process and closed. You won't be contacted by us our agents regarding this matter".   Thank you all for your help, nice to finally get it settled.
    • The points are that you believe that a person or court hearing a Statutory Declaration has the option of rejecting it if he or they believe it is untrue. You must presumably believe that the person or court has a duty to question (perhaps more properly, cross-examine) the person making the declaration. You started by saying this about the declaration as a whole then went on to concentrate on the 21 day rule. I asked you to let us know how you have arrived at that conclusion. In particular I asked why you had provided specific advice to the OP in the original thread (a) that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really did not know of the proceedings at all and (b) if she did not know at all, that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really found out less that 21 days before she makes her SD. I suggested it was unwise to warn the OP of something which would not happen. As far as I can recall you suggested that S14 of the MCA provides for SDs to be rejected if they are not satisfied as to its truth and I asked you to show me where the legislation is that provides for this (because it's certainly not in S14).   The position is that a Statutory Declaration must be heard if made within 21 days of the defendant finding out about the conviction and it will be accepted unchallenged. If it is made outside 21 days the defendant states why as part of the declaration. If the court agrees that the reason it was late (as stated by the defendant and without challenge) is acceptable it will hear the Declaration and once it is heard it will be accepted without question. For the final time, the making of a Statutory Declaration is not a court hearing and apart from being satisfied, in the case of a late declaration being made, that the reason (as stated by the defendant) is acceptable, those hearing it have no discretion but to hear it and sign it to say they have done so. No orders are made; no decisions are made; no discretion is available (apart from the 21 day matter I mentioned).   To emphasise the difficulty your misleading information has caused, the latest post from the OP on the original thread says this (when considering her court appearance on Wednesday):   I am hopeful that they will accept that I knew nothing of the earlier proceedings...   She should not have no worry about that because the court has no option but to accept her declaration that she knew nothing of the proceedings. However, because of your advice she has. I am, once again, about to allay her fears on that score and it would be useful if you didn't tell her otherwise.    
  • Our picks


New account owners edited date of default. Is this legal?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2146 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 guys


Looking for a bit of advice regarding a default.


I had a pdl with quickquid, they never issued a default. The account was 'sold' to mucky hall who on the date of purchase applied a default on my credit file. I have been challenging this since as I was never supplied a proper default notice. In the final response from m/hall they have supplied a default notice they claim was originally supplied by quickquid, which is dated 3 months prior to the 'notice' they had originally supplied and 3 months prior to the date on my credit file. They now claim that upon purchase of the account they updated the details of my default to reflect the date they had taken ownership.


I am now raising my complaint with the FOS and need to know if what the claim to have done is in anyway legal?


Thanks in advance


QuickQuid £1004 RBS £1500 Mastercard £300 Clydesdale bank £3450 Wonga £2000 Elephant.co.uk £200 Shop Direct Finance £570

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, I think the original creditor has to enter the first default marker. Mucky Hall can only update it, they cannot alter the original default date for any reason.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **


Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first


1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -


2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read





2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS




Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet, thanks CB that's what I thought. The whole thing has been a shambals from the start contradicting lie after lie. I have it all documented though and will return my full complaint to FOS. I had previously raised it with FOS but they required a final response from m/hall first. Hopefully this time I will get somewhere


Thanks again


QuickQuid £1004 RBS £1500 Mastercard £300 Clydesdale bank £3450 Wonga £2000 Elephant.co.uk £200 Shop Direct Finance £570

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical tricks from mucky hall. Get a full complaint in to their date controller and inform their local trading standards office.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..



If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks


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...