Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • 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 
        • 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

Credit file showing default after F&F settlement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3659 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 Caggers,

 

The agreed written terms of my Full and Final Settlement for my debt with the Post Office Credit Card (Bank of Ireland) were

 

The balance would set to £0

CRA files would be marked to show the account as "satisfied" or "settled" in full

The account would be closed

 

All three to be actioned within 14 days after payment which was made two years ago.

 

I supposed I should have checked my CRA files sooner but I did so today and

 

found the balance is shown as £2100,

 

The status is "Default" and the account is still shown in the "Open Accounts" section.

 

I will write a complaint letter demanding that they modify the entry as agreed.

 

Do I have a legitimate claim for compensation on the ground that they made my credit rating files worse than they would otherwise have been?

 

I realise this could be tricky as the agreement was made with The Bank of Ireland who are based in the Republic of Ireland

so can I claim compensation under UK law because they operate the Post Office Credit Card here?

 

I will be grateful for your advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

urm..

 

wherever did you ever get the notion that the default would not still show?

 

unless you SPECIFICALLY negotiated that they REMOVE the default, it will still show.

 

have you got written proof from them that they would comply

with bal of £0

marked as settled?

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..

wherever did you ever get the notion that the default would not still show?

unless you SECIFICALLY negotiated that they REMOVE the default, it will still show.

 

have you got written proof from them that they would comply

with bal of £0

marked as settled?

 

Yes, they agreed in writing to reduce the balance to £0, mark the account as settled/satisfied and close the account.

It seems that I was under the (mistaken) belief that on closing the account the default would cease to show. I did not realise that I needed to negotiate its removal separately. Oops.

 

The account is now shown as open, default and balance £2100. Does this harm my credit rating more than if the account was marked closed, settled and £0 with the default history still showing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write to the Data Controller and ask for the default status to be removed, as it stand now the entry shows the accurate and up to date conduct of the account.

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

Write to the Data Controller and ask for the default status to be removed, as it stand now the entry shows the accurate and up to date conduct of the account.

Thank you, I will request for the default status to be removed.

I am puzzled as to why you say the entry shows accurate and up to date information when it should have been changed by the creditor two years ago in accordance with the terms of the f&f settlement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that it has not been amended does not affect the fact that it shows the accurate picture of the account, i.e., the account was defaulted and subsequently satisfied by a full and final payment, technically if the F&F was only partial the entry should show as "partially satisfied".

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

The fact that it has not been amended does not affect the fact that it shows the accurate picture of the account, i.e., the account was defaulted and subsequently satisfied by a full and final payment, technically if the F&F was only partial the entry should show as "partially satisfied".

 

My aim with f&f settlements was for the CRA entries to change to:

 

Settled or Satisfied in full.

Zero balance

Account closed

Default status removed

No "partially satisfied" note.

 

I failed to include the last point in the settlement terms as the creditors agreed to mark CRA registers "Settled or Satisfied in Full". How is it that an entry can comply with that stipulation and also show "partially satisfied". Can it be both? I am confused (not for the first time, according to my wife).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F&F is an agreement between creditor and debtor, the CRA file entry has to show an up to date reflection of the status of the account.

 

 

In the case of an F&F less than the outstanding balance it is inaccurate to state that the default has been satisfied.

 

 

A creditor/debt purchaser may agree to amend the entries but the debtor must ensure that he/she has " covered all the bases".

 

 

Some DCAs/DPs state that they cannot state that a partial settlement must be recorded as such to comply with the ICOs guidance on defaults,

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

Mmm, so are you saying that the creditor agreed to mark the account as settled/satisfied in full but is prevented from complying? i.e. they cannot remove the default status unless the debt is paid in full.

My view is that a full and final settlement comprising a partial payment plus the balance being written off by the creditor = settlement in full. Therefore the default is satisfied by contributions from both sides. How does OFT guidance contradict this view?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are at least 3 DCAs stating this I'll call it a theory at present that the account status must be reported exactly, and to do otherwise will breach data protection rules.

 

 

This is not OFT guidance the Credit Reference Agencies are regulated under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

 

It is clear that a partial payment in full & final settlement does on partially satisfy the default so there is merit in the claim that 'partially satisfied' is the accurate picture of the conduct of the account.

 

 

I will look further in to this.

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

  • 4 weeks later...
There are at least 3 DCAs stating this I'll call it a theory at present that the account status must be reported exactly, and to do otherwise will breach data protection rules.

 

 

This is not OFT guidance the Credit Reference Agencies are regulated under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

 

It is clear that a partial payment in full & final settlement does on partially satisfy the default so there is merit in the claim that 'partially satisfied' is the accurate picture of the conduct of the account.

 

 

I will look further in to this.

 

Hi Brigadier

 

Would you update please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The information provided in post 10# is what is happening creditors/DCAs are saying that partial (F&F) settlements must b recorded as such to show the true picture of the conduct of the account.

The ICO Guidance seems back this up too.

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

Does your information mean that I cannot take any action to ensure the creditor applies all the f&f settlement terms?

 

The creditor's legal department agreed that receipt of the payment would form a binding contract where they would carry out the following:

 

The balance would set to £0 (it continues to show £1200)

 

Within 14 days all CRA files would be marked to show the account as satisfied or settled in full. (That was two years ago, the account continues to only show default)

 

The account would be closed (it is still in the open accounts section of the CRA reports).

 

Do I have any reasonable grounds for claiming compensation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the date of the default?

 

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

Date of default July 2011

Date of agreed f&f settlement terms and the 40% agreed f&f payment - March 2012

Since then every month shows account still open, DF, balance history £2100, Limit history £5000

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah so a good few years to wait hen.

 

pers i'd give it a go and

 

write to them and

ask if they can

removed the default

£0 the balance

mark it settled

 

no harm in asking

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

write to them and ask if they can

removed the default

£0 the balance

mark it settled

 

no harm in asking

 

Thanks for the advice DX but

 

it seems a bit wishy washy to simply ask "if they can" make the changes when you consider the situation.

 

They agreed to accept the money as a f&f settlement following which they would make three specific changes to the CRA status.

 

They took the money and failed to make any of the changes which has resulted in my credit status being worse

than it should have been for the past two years.

 

In addition the third party who provided the funds would have offered less if the creditor had attempted to negotiate less favourable terms.

 

Bottom line is that they took the money and failed to complete their side of the f&f agreement, to my detriment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

then point those things out in relation to what you want to happen.

 

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

Does your information mean that I cannot take any action to ensure the creditor applies all the f&f settlement terms?

 

The creditor's legal department agreed that receipt of the payment would form a binding contract where they would carry out the following:

 

The balance would set to £0 (it continues to show £1200)

 

Within 14 days all CRA files would be marked to show the account as satisfied or settled in full. (That was two years ago, the account continues to only show default)

 

The account would be closed (it is still in the open accounts section of the CRA reports).

 

Do I have any reasonable grounds for claiming compensation?

 

 

 

 

The regulator (the Information Commissioners Office) has said the CRA Files Must show accurate and up to date data, which means an accurate picture of the conduct of the account, so a partial settlement agreed as full and final between the parties i.e. CRA file marked as " partially satisfied" the CRAs present data in different ways one may show the default date and the date the default was partially satisfied, another may show no default date ( although the status of the account is still "default) the date of the partial settlement.

 

 

IF a settlement is made the data controller of the account must up date the files within a reasonable time to ensure that the data is up to date and accurate, if this does not happen you would need to contact the data controller in writing and require them to suitably amend the file entry.

 

 

Basically it is not the creditor/DCAs choice of how the data is comprised and displayed.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...