Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks Bankfodder!   Hello again everyone.    I received my SAR back from Elderbridge and what and absolute load of **** it is!   1.  They did not send any transcripts or recordings of any phones calls  - both myself and my husband spoke to them in Aug 2016 (noted in their diary notes) and I called them in Dec 2018 (again noted in their diary notes) it was the same day they sent the reply even though they have mentioned me calling in their notes on that day, so not sure I should let that go or not!   I also spoke to them in July 2016 (again in the notes) and I spoke to them in Dec 2012 (again in the notes)    2.  Going through the diary notes in the beginning notes were sporadic mainly because we were making payment and everything was ok, then later as things changed there were notes almost once a month, then in NOV 2012 and Dec 2012 frequency of notes increase as this is when they began court proceedings.  and throughout 2013 again lots of notes made - mostly their in house stuff about court dealings and so on - so that's fine. then in NOV 2013 hey made a not re the court date in OCT - saying that they were ordered to treat the loan as having a fixed rate from inception and sent off etc.  BUT from 21 Nov 2013 to 17th June 2014 there are no notes at all!  Now the hearing was on the 10th Jan 2014!   17/06/2014 14:43 *****Substantial EVS costs to be added to any SF ****** 17/06/2014 14:43 EVS Defended + At the hearing on 10/01/2014 an SPO for 500 on 26/01/2014 and then CMI + £60 wef 26/02/2014 plus MJ for £103,331.03 suspended on the same terms. It was also held that we could add our costs - Defended costs on this case are £33,879.80. 17/06/2014 00:00 Reviewed Reviewed 17/06/2014 00:00 ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF 21/11/2013 04:13 ADHOC Statement Printed From 03/10/13 To 13/11/13 Batch 2015 Sequence 28 Printed 13/11/2013 00:00:00   Above you can cleary see the gap then suddenly the first notes talk about the court case and costs etc, at the trial in OCT the judge reserved cost till the next hearing (also stated on the documentation from the court)  but then at that hearing in Jan 2014 we did not discuss costs - the 6 month gap I feel is very suspicious.    The final court document  dated 13th Jan 2014 says to pay the claimant £103,331.03 which is the amount outstanding under the mortgage and goes on to says order were not to be enforced as long as we pay etc.  no mention of costs at all - so they seem to just be adding them   3.   They sent a field agent to me in Jan 2018, I only knew this as on the 9th Jan 2018 I was working at home and heard the letterbox, thought it was the postman, went to the door to find an envelope shoved through the door with a letter in it saying they had been requested to visit me and that they called today but I was not in! and gave a number for me to call ( I saw the woman walking down the driveway - but she did not ring the bell! and I wasn't about to run after her!)   But in the notes they have written this utter lie!   30/01/2018 12:44 Field Agent Report Received The field agent visited the security address on three occasions. The customer was spoken to through the window. They refused to discuss and refused to answer the door. The contact number on file is not recognised. RFA - Not known Reasons for items not verified:N/A Details of variances of items outside of expenditure guidelines and reasons N/A Property is a detached house in good condation valued at £406,000. Equity not known.   I actually cannot believe what I have read here! Can I ask them for some kind of proof of this, because I don't know who they are talking about but it certainly wasn't me!   4.  the documents they had sent me a joke, they have sent 77 documents in total, none of these are copies of letter from Elderbridge (which is who I sent the SAR to) all from First Plus and certainly not ALL of them, they have been bulked out by sending me copies of documents that I sent TO THEM for my court defence and there are strange Black boxes over some of the text!? which I don't understand!     After receiving this info from Elderbridge I decided to send a SAR to Barclays and I got a small package with a couple of letters, some diary notes and screen shot of the account, as well as a short statement of account. This was for our ORIGINAL loan from Feb 2006,  (we topped it up in June 2006) and the first one was closed.  The second one is the one that has been transferred to Elderbridge but Barclays seem to know be denying ALL knowledge of it! and I know that they still hold the beneficial interest of these loans and that Elderbridge regularly contact Barclays for help and advise - I have contact with other account holders who have diary notes from Elderbridge showing contact to Barclays!..   This week I also had a reply from the FOS (only from an adjudicator not an ombudsman) and his initial opion is that it's ok for Elderbridge to claim the costs as we defaulted, he seems to be ignoring my argument that the relationship is unfair etc but I will be sending this back and asking for it to be looked at by an ombudsman.   But was hoping that someone here could give me any advise re all of this - sorry I know it's a lot!!
    • why all the blanked out stuff in the parking contract? and no proof its paid this year either?  
    • pop the exhibits as a sep file i'll merge them for you
    • Thanks.   I've managed to reduce the file size and deleted from this copy all of the pages of photos and copies of the signs. Just their witness statement and the photos of the car parked up remain.   They say "My company relies on Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) in which it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the driver's actions as prescribed therein"   Is there a refutation to this case anywhere? Or do I not argue that  and just refer back to EB's earlier post and focus on the signs?   "What you are writing is roughly your side of events and referring to the evidence you can provide so that will include their signage, any evidence or lack of authority for them to offer anything, their paperwork if that doesn't create a liability, the POFA where the vital phrases have been missed by the parking co or the timescales missed.   then you pick holes in the wording and substance fo their claim, for example, contractual sum or breach of contract - they are different. are they claiming from you as driver or keeper, cant assume they are one and the same.   What about the amount claimed? it will invariably include unicorn food tax so if they are saying keeper ia liable they are limited to asking for the amount shown on the NTK and you should make this clear as it helps damage their assertion that driver and keeper liability are the same thing   As they havent responded to your CPR request for documents you can start off with that but it isnt a golden bullet, "   thanks Bundle_the_approved,_signed_statement_with_the_exhibits-_Reduced.pdf
    • Hi, I have had to hand my notice into work this week due to my Manager telling me that I had lied to him. After we had a talk about it I received lots off emails asking about various things that needed sorted as someone else who I work with made such huge problems, so I was told to deal with it, which I have no issue with. I was also promised bonus money in April due to us doing so well and as off yet I have received nothing.  I was thinking about putting in a grievance but wanted to find out more before I do. I am still employed by them + am still on the payroll. Thanks in advance  
  • Our picks

citizenB

19 year old loses her battle with cervical cancer, having been told she was too young to have a smear test !!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1792 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

Sophie Jones, 19, lost her battle with cancer on Saturday morning - her family say it should never have happened

 

 

 

Nineteen-year-old Sophie Jones lost her fight for life early on Saturday morning, having been diagnosed in November.

 

Sophie had suffered for months with severe stomach pains that doctors put down to Crohn's disease, despite her asking for a smear test that could have picked it up.

 

Medical professionals said Sophie, from Eastham, Wirral, was too young to have contracted the disease, which is extremely rare in women under 25.

 

But when she was admitted to hospital after her condition worsened they found the cancer, and discovered it had already spread to other parts of her body.

 

For the full story - read HERE

 

 

 

 

 

 

The parents have set up a petition in order that other young girls are not let down as Sophie was - you can sign HERE


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 -

HERE

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

 

 

BCOBS

 

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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed!


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

Signed aswell.

 

 

I lost my mum when I was 17 to cancer she was only 39 and I have 2 girls both have had their cancer jabs def agree to lower the age for smear tests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on everyone this is IMPORTANT get signing !!!


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

The tragedy of doctors trying to fit round human beings into tick-boxes. Petition already signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The tragedy of doctors trying to fit round human beings into tick-boxes. Petition already signed.

 

 

Awful for her and her family.

 

However, why do the doctors not want to do the test?

If it is on financial grounds : how much money would need to be spent to save that one life, and is that money being spent instead to save more lives elsewhere?

 

How many tests need to be done to save one woman's life (but more importantly!) : is there a "cost to health" of doing those tests to save the one life? (False positive tests, the worry that causes, is there a risk to life from all the follow-up work from those "false positives")?

 

I don't know the answer, and it may be those tests should be done, but I'd want to know they are being done with the knowledge they cause less harm than they solve, and that the reason for NOT testing has been fully considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed, there should be NO limit on age for cancer tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHS owes a duty of care to every person in the UK.


Welcome to Consumer Action Group

 

'Challenges are what makes life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.'

Joshua J. Marine

 

1) CLAIM BACK ALL PENALTY CHARGES CLICK HERE

2) CLAIM BACK ALL MIS-SOLD PPI CLICK HERE

3) COMPOUNDED CONTRACTUAL INTEREST CLICK HERE

4) REQUEST CCA FROM CREDITOR CLICK HERE

5) OFT- UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENTS CLICK HERE

6) CAREY V HSBC (2009) CLICK HERE

7) DON'T BE BULLIED BY CREDITORS / DCA's CLICK HERE

8) IN DEBT DON'T PANIC CLICK HERE

9) FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT CLICK HERE

10) SALE OF GOODS ACT-EDUCATE YOUR RETAILER CLICK HERE

11) DISTANCE SELLING-EDUCATE YOR RETAILERCLICK HERE

12) SOGA SUMMARY CLICK HERE

13) WHICH? TEMPLATES [/url]CLICK HERE

14) DOES YOU BANK TREAT YOU FAIRLY BCOBSCLICK HERE

15) EVERYTHING HOUSING CLICK HERE

16) UTILITY BACKBILLING CLICK HERE

17) OFGEM - COMPLAINTSCLICK HERE

18) OFCOM - COMPLAINTS CLICK HERE

DON'T GIVE UP, THIS SITE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH GUIDANCE AND EMPOWERMENT

 

Don't forget to donate to this site

 

Please let us know how your problem has been resolved, it could help fellow Caggers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazza, my understanding from the radio this morning was that this poor girl asked to have a smear test and was refused. I can see that possibly the statistics don't support a test for everybody of her age, but I would have thought it should have been tried in this case.

 

Obviously I'm not a medic.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Signed, there should be NO limit on age for cancer tests.

 

http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/faq08.html

Cervical abnormalities associated with HPV infection are very common in women under 25, but are rarer in older women. Abnormalities in young women go away by themselves in the great majority of cases.6,7 Therefore, the consequence of screening younger women is that many would test positive for abnormalities and would subsequently be sent for unnecessary treatment to remove the affected cells. This treatment may increase the likelihood of a woman having a pre-term delivery if she goes on to have children 8,9,10,11 and the whole process can cause significant anxiety. Cervical cancer is extremely rare in women under the age of 25 with just 2.6 cases per 100,000 women.12 Therefore, the harms of screening women under the age of 25 are currently thought to outweigh the benefits.2

 

Screening is not appropriate for women who have symptoms, and conducting a cervical screening test may delay the proper diagnostic process in such cases. If you have symptoms, such as bleeding between periods or after sex, please consult your GP straight away.

 

So, if she had symptoms, she should have had appropriate testing / referral if necessary, and still not had "screening" : the guidelines specifically note this as different to "routine screening", and even note that wrongly doing "routine screening" rather than the right tests can DELAY diagnosis.

 

If she had no symptoms then they would do more harm screening asymptomatic young women than they'd save.

 

I wonder if the issue is not "should she have had routine screening" but "was there a non-routine test that she should have had but didn't?".

If so the answer isn't "we must extend the age range for screening" but " we must make sure women get the right (non-screening) test if they need it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed a very worthwhile cause.


How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets see what retarded excuse this inept government comes up so they dont have to do it.


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

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read about this yesterday and checked the petition just now. They have almost 200,000 signatures which has to make this petition one of the fastest moving ever.

 

Hope everyone will sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the fastest ever because it's a no brainer. Only a completely inept human being would vote against it.


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

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's one of the fastest ever because it's a no brainer. Only a completely inept human being would vote against it.

 

Count me completely inept.

 

The medical experts say it'll cause harm.

 

I think it'll "fix the wrong problem"

The politicians will see "vote loser, we must do something!", and do the wrong thing .... Start screening in under 25's instead of spending money on ensuring the right test at the right time.

 

I do know it isn't "routine screening" that is needed: if it is a test that is needed it is needed urgently, not to sit within a pile of "routine" smear tests that might not get looked at for weeks - because they are viewed as routine / non-urgent.

 

We don't know from the press reports if she had symptoms of cervical cancer like post-coital bleeding or inter-menstrual bleeding. If she did, she needed urgent colposcopy & a "routine smear " was "the wrong test"

 

A smear isn't a test for cervical cancer.

 

A smear is a test for the pre-cancerous cells.

Ah-hah! You say, so "Just do the screening earlier and you'll pick them up early!".

Well, no : if you screen that early, you'll pick up (and refer on), lots of "abnormal" smears that would sort themselves out. So few would go on to be cancer that the system would be creaking under the load of the follow ups that were never needed : the ones that need to be spotted will get spotted but late because the system is overloaded.

BECAUSE the test for cervical cancer isn't a smear, it is colposcopy.

 

And all the colposcopy clinics will be full from all the screening of the under 25's

 

The "answer" is not screening of the under 25's, it is referral for colposcopy of those who need it, regardless of age, and not letting her get told "you are too young for cervical cancer"

 

I don't know if an error was made for the lady whose case is reported, but the question might well be "should she have had colposcopy" rather than "Should she have had a smear"

 

If an under 25 had symptoms needing colposcopy they need urgent colposcopy, and they don't need those clinics to be unavailable because they are booked out with women who have an abnormal smear (that likely isn't cancer & likely never will be), who have been unnecessarily worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard that a smear test can cause harm. I started having them at 20, although I had to pay for them.

 

I can see your point though. I think the issue here is that if anyone is worried and has symptoms that concern them they should be given a test and that test should be prioritised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never heard that a smear test can cause harm. I started having them at 20, although I had to pay for them.

 

I can see your point though. I think the issue here is that if anyone is worried and has symptoms that concern them they should be given a test and that test should be prioritised.

 

Cause harm (not just from the worry factor!) by referral for further tests that weren't needed...... how many follow-up tests needed to prevent one case of cervical cancer in an under 25, and what damage from those unnecessary follow-ups.

 

As for "and that test prioritised " : It should be the right test.

 

Test for pre-cancerous cells : smear

Test for cervical cancer : not smear, but colposcopy. Additionally, the colposcopy needs to be available urgently.

But the urgent appointment may not be available that quickly if the clinics are full of those who never needed to be there : so that's a further cause of harm from screening.

 

Right test, right time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you mean by "further tests that weren't needed." You would only be sent for a further test if there was cause for concern. And what damage?

 

I can understand though that you may think the tests should only be available to those who have symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand what you mean by "further tests that weren't needed." You would only be sent for a further test if there was cause for concern. And what damage?

 

I can understand though that you may think the tests should only be available to those who have symptoms.

 

From the FAQ (URL cited previously in the thread)

http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/faq08.html

Cervical abnormalities associated with HPV infection are very common in women under 25, but are rarer in older women. Abnormalities in young women go away by themselves in the great majority of cases.

 

and

 

Therefore, the consequence of screening younger women is that many would test positive for abnormalities and would subsequently be sent for unnecessary treatment to remove the affected cells. This treatment may increase the likelihood of a woman having a pre-term delivery if she goes on to have children

 

So, for under 25's "pre-cancerous" changes are common, but rarely go on to problems.

 

In over 25's "pre-cancerous" changes are seen less often, and when they are seen more frequently go on to become cancer.

 

So in under 25's doing screening looking for pre-cancerous cells generates lots of positive results, that then someone says "positive result : I know the evidence says I really ought to ignore this, as it says I'll do more harm than good if I don't, and I really wish the test hadn't been done, but it was done, and if I don't do something and she later gets cancer I'll be pilloried" .... So they get called in for a colposcopy, and a cone biopsy ..... which likely shows "normal for an under 25".

 

Meanwhile, the under 25 with symptoms of post-coital bleeding :

a) gets a "routine smear" instead of a colposcopy, and the slide doesn't get looked at urgently, because it is sat in a pile of "routine" work, and it isn't the colposcopy that would have been the right test to do, or

b) gets sent for that urgent colposcopy, but gets it less soon as the clinics are more clogged up as previously described.

 

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear, but there is a "cost" in terms of resources used (and not purely financial, but "availability of service") as well as harm from the tests that result from the screening...... So the benefit has to be balanced to the risk.

 

The experts say : under 25, don't screen as a matter of routine. Refer for colposcopy urgently IF symptoms.

Over 25, screen routinely, and STILL refer urgently if symptoms.

 

"But what about the under 25's who don't have symptoms but who get cervical cancer?" ; is the obvious question.

Isn't it callous to not do anything, when we have a screening test we could use??

 

Horrible though it is to look at people as statistics, to do 'the best for the most' looking at the statistics is the best they can do, and the answer comes back as : "most under 25 's with cervical cancer (rare) will have symptoms, so focus on getting them the urgent colposcopy they need"

 

"for those who are

a) under 25,

b) have cervical cancer AND

c) no symptoms " : "how much harm is caused to the women who never would have developed cancer but get cone biopsies and pre-term labour (or die from a very rare complication of the procedures)"

 

against "how many die from cervical cancer that is 'missed' because they don't have symptoms", both being very rare ........ They want to "do the best for the most", but screening isn't without its "cost" and (rare) risks ..... so they have to decide where the cut-off is where benefit from screening exceeds risk : and they've worked it out as "age 25"

 

Just to re-iterate :

Smear = test for pre cancerous cells not for cancer

Colposcopy / biopsy = test for cervical cancer.

 

However, what if the politicians face a massive demand for putting the lower age for screening back to 20 (where it used to be), or even lower?

Do you think politicians will "do what is right, even if unpopular " or "do what gets them votes"?

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2968

 

A careful review of the screening histories of women aged 20-24 with a diagnosis of cervical cancer suggests that few (if any) of the cancers occurred through a lack of screening. Indeed only five of these 73 women had not been screened previously.

 

So, they get the screening demanded, which makes people feel better for themselves as "they've done something about it" and the politicians are happy as it is a vote winner. Sadly, though, when human nature and emotion are removed from the equation : the lack of screening was never the problem.

 

What we aren't told is how many of those 5 (or 73, or all 78)

a) had colposcopy (since even colposcopy and treatment isn't perfect),

b) should have had colposcopy and didn't (where better referral mechanisms might have helped), and

c) where they never had symptoms, so didn't warrant colposcopy, and "no-one did anything wrong", and it was "just bad luck".

 

It's one of the fastest ever because it's a no brainer. Only a completely inept human being would vote against it.

 

RI, did you look at the FAQ URL I posted 3 hours prior to your comment?.

 

Apologies if I'm still "a completely inept human being " if you disagree with the citations I've used to try to explain and I'm still making a hash of explaining my viewpoint, or if it makes me look callous, but with no perfect testing regime all they can do is "the best for the most".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my understanding that once a female became sexually active, she entered the risk category !.

 

So why not remove the age barrier and confirm that all sexually active females be given the test, regardless of their age !


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 -

HERE

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

 

 

BCOBS

 

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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read about this yesterday and checked the petition just now. They have almost 200,000 signatures which has to make this petition one of the fastest moving ever.

 

Hope everyone will sign.

 

What I was so pleased about was the speed this particular petition has got the publicity it needed.

 

I am pleased to see that this particular petition is growing so swiftly.


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 -

HERE

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

 

 

BCOBS

 

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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hospital local to me is under investigation for " massaging" cancer case figures, why care trusts cannot act honestly when peoples lives are at risk beggars belief.


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
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1792 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...