Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I thought the LibDems were going to table a motion of no confidence? I haven't heard anything about it for a couple of days.
    • Sorry for late reply dx been away and appreciate your replies. Yes he has paid the original borrowed amount off but obviously interest on top in which is owed and offer to write off. I know it is only a small amount owing but I didn't know whether to attempt to pursue with reclaim of previous paid amount plus interest. Or just to accept their offer and have removed from Credit File.
    • breaking news More Tory MPs ‘pondering defecting’ 'bl**dy hell, if they'll have her I should be a shoe in. I dont stand a chance as a Tory, but I might if I'm the labour candidate' .. is rumored to be heard again and again at the Torys favorite  subsidised bars of Westminster.   More Tory MPs ‘pondering defecting’ as Natalie Elphicke ‘sorry’ - live WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Labour frontbencher says other Conservatives wrestling with their futures and calls grow for Diane Abbott to be let back into party "Wes Streeting insisted his party would not take just any Tory MP" .. as he looked nervously looked over his shoulder   We may be looking forward to a vote of no confidence in the Guv by the newly majority labour party as early as next week has allegedly been overheard
    • You were given this PCN because you overstayed not because you went to Starbucks or MaccyDs from the other car park. I assume therefore that the parking time is only 30 minutes as you were recorded as being there for 38 minutes. Given that there is a Consideration time and a Grace period  as well as the time between their photographs of your car arriving and leaving one wonders why they gave you a ticket. Force of habit I suppose. Because they are on airport land which is governed by Bye Laws that supercede PoFA we do not usually look at their PCNs there because in none of them can the charge be transferred from the driver to the keeper  as would normally happen after 28 days if the charge is unpaid and the land is not subject to Byelaws. In your case as they have failed to specify the Parking period  which is the time car is spent actually parked in a parking space not the bit that they include which is driving from the entrance to the parking space and the other bit from the parking space to the exit. As that reduces the lawful time you were actually parked I would suggest that they have breached your GDPR.
  • 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 
      • 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

help - delinking a ex husband nw m out of Iva


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3695 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,

 

 

I am trying to clean my credit file up after being in a IVA. I was married when I went into the iVA and we both had separate iva I finished mine however my ex husband defaulted. I have filled in a notice of disassociation and the credit agency is refusing to take him off my credit file. A couple of the debts were joint but was in a separate IVAs We have been divorced 5 years. Help?

 

 

Also I note that a ex partner who I had a joint bank account which is now closed is still showing linked , I have filled in a notice of disassociation, however if there is a problem what is the next course of action ?

 

 

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi welcome to CAG,

 

 

If the debts are for joint accounts the associations must stay on file, as the CRA has to show an accurate picture of the conduct and liability for the debts. If the details are correct there is no reason for them to be removed.

 

 

The agencies cannot change the data supplied by creditors or DCAs without their permission.

 

 

All defaulted debt entries are removed on the 6th anniversary of the default date.

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

Hello there,

 

Do you have a completion certifcate for your IVA? If so your liability for the debts has ceased. This means that you should not have a joint financial connection UNLESS there is something else that is connecting you - like a joint mortgage, for example?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a case of liability it is a matter of recording the history of the account which is in question, just as any defaulted debt remains on file for 6 years paid or not.

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

I don't think it is a case of liability it is a matter of recording the history of the account which is in question, just as any defaulted debt remains on file for 6 years paid or not.

 

The OP was talking about a joint financial connection. This is only relevant with current, active agreements. She's looking to disassociate financially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware after many years of using CRAs from " both sides" an account held jointly cannot be disassociated the CRA record is for the joint account which is treated in the same way as any other defaulted account it remains on the files as a true record of the account the OP was financially linked and that record is correct.

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 query isn't about what appears on the credit file as far as historic debt information is concerned - of course that information will stand. The specific point is about disassociation going forward. Remember that the OP's liability for the debts has finsihed due to completion of the IVA. I hope that clarifies things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the OP has no liability, but I see the CRAs point of view, that a link exists as a matter of record and the CRA entry is correct, that clarifies things I think.

All will be gone on the 6th anniversary of the 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

I've just spoken to Experian to doublecheck, and I'm not going mad, so long as there are no longer any ongoing joint liabilities - it is possible to disassocate.

 

Any past history will still show on the file - but the link to the other person will no longer play a part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...