Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you very much ericsbrother. I will pass this on to the residents of that Close, hopefully they do not pay that company for the privilege of having those signs.
    • Didn't need to submit an N245.  So long as I'm unemployed this is suspended and as I've said, at my age the chances of me getting work are very, very low.  I looked at the N245 form and it was identical to the N56 form.  I also took advice from the National Debt Helpline.  They were very nice and helpful so if anyone's afraid of calling them, they needn't be.   They also told me that if I did want to submit the N245 I could also submit the form N160 which gives help with fees.  I decided just to submit the N56 as requested, ticking the box unemployed as you suggested.  The Court accepted that.  They have left it open that should I find work then Lowells would be free to reapply to the Court which is what I expected.  However, it is unlikely that scenario will arise so as far as I'm concerned, the matter is over.  If the impossible happens and I do get a job, then I will deal with that as and when it arises.   Had I not been so careless in the first place by forgetting the Hearing date and gone to Court to fight my corner, then this would have been killed stone dead a couple of years ago.  However, what is done is done but as the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.   Again, thank you for all your help.  You've been marvellous 😀    
    • Cheers for reply. I kind off thought that after I handed it in but wanted to seek further advice as I still work at the Co. I have been there 2 years
    • I'm having a bit of fun with a former landlord who I'm aiming to serve a Rent Repayment Order on. The problem I'm now having is that I think my Council's selective licensing department is mis interpreting the law. The issue is that according to their own guidelines I should, as a tenant in the property for more than 3 years, have been consulted before a license was issued. The council is now saying that I should not have been consulted at all.   The Council says  "I can confirm that the Council conform to the requirements of Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 2004 which sets out the meaning of “relevant person” for the purposes of consultation. The Act specifically states that any tenant who has an unexpired lease of 3 years or less is excluded from the consultation process prior to awarding a Selective Licence. That is why you were not consulted."   Schedule 5 says, in the only reference to 3 years at all "13(1)In this Part of this Schedule “licence” means a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act. (2)In this Part of this Schedule “relevant person”, in relation to a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act, means any person (other than a person excluded by sub-paragraph (3))— (a)who, to the knowledge of the local housing authority concerned, is— (i)a person having an estate or interest in the HMO or Part 3 house in question, or (ii)a person managing or having control of that HMO or Part 3 house (and not falling within sub-paragraph (i)), or (b)on whom any restriction or obligation is or is to be imposed by the licence in accordance with section 67(5) or 90(6). (3)The persons excluded by this sub-paragraph are— (a)the applicant for the licence and (if different) the licence holder, and (b)any tenant under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less."   If correct this means tenants are never consulted.   Is this correct ? And if not, why not ?  
  • Our picks


Are their any good CMC's?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1408 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 all, would just like some advice please.



My daughter and her partner had PPI some years ago, but have no paperwork or proof.



they keep on getting calls from CMC's who claim that they can find any PPI you had and reclaim it, even if you have no paperwork or details.



Obviously, as it stands, they feel they have no way of getting anything, so they are thinking, maybe paying a CMC 30% commision

is a worthwhile fee to do something they cant.


ANy thoughts on the matter greatly appreciated.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

All they have to do is send a Subject Access Request to all their original creditors / Banks.

If more than one account is with the same banking group one request would get all the information on all accounts.


There is absolutely no need to be giving some CMC a high percentage of any monies due.


Can you list the Banks ect they had accounts or loans with.


Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

send the banks an sar.



a cmc has no more or less legal clout or chance of success than you do.



its easy to do yourself for free.






please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.



Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best CMC is YOURSELF, not these cowboys who charge 28% +vat for little work you can do yourself, this country is full of crooks in disguise.


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...