Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I posted a reply earlier which I have now deleted because I realise that I hadn't read your story correctly. You have laid out £1000 on repairs to a vehicle which according to you is probably in need of further repairs. Although you have been rebuffed by the dealer at your first asking, your position would be much better had you provided the quotes for the repair work to the dealer in advance so that he had forward knowledge and was able to present his own opinions before you went ahead and spent the money. This kind of transparency is essential when you are in conflict with somebody who may later on dispute the value of the work which was carried out. Fortunately you have had more than one opinion from independent garages and this will be very helpful to you. So in order to recover your money, you have prepared a letter but which is rather open-ended because it simply says that you would like to have a reply within 14 days or else you may go and see a solicitor. Given that you have been rebuffed quite peremptorily by the seller of the vehicle, I don't think that this is going to make very much impression. You need to take control of this and assert yourself. I notice that you say that you are too exhausted to look around for a replacement vehicle. Do you have the stamina to conduct a small claim against this dealer? It's very easy but it will require some tenacity and there won't be a quick solution. I can expect to go on for six months or so before you get a result unless the dealer decides to put their hands up. I would avoid going to a solicitor if I were you because first of all you incur expenses which you will not get back from the dealer. Also the solicitor will start off by sending letters which will simply delay things further and of course will incur further costs for you. You haven't told us the name of the dealer – even though you have been asked by another member of the site team. He also haven't told us anything about the car – the make, model, year, mileage and price. I think we will have to modify your letter based on whether you think that you would be prepared to take your own small claim action. If you do take a small claim action then your financial outlay will be fairly minimal and everything you do outlay will be recoverable – assuming that you win. On the basis of what you say, I would guess that your chances of success are much better than 90%. However, there is the issue that the dealer may try to challenge the value of the work you have had carried out because you didn't give him any advance notice. We will have to deal with this.  
    • So Guys, After sending the last letter as everyone else  here I got a reply from Moriartylaw with a statement that ADCB instructed them to act on their behalf and a copy of all my credit card bank statements. Not sure what to do now. They want me to respond and supply them with a list of asset and liabilities.    please the attachment of the letter. moriartylaw.jpeg.pdf
    • Okay, let me start again. In terms of planning, is it not enough to say they don't have it since it's not shown on the council site? If not, if I ring Stockport planning would they put in writing that there's no planning?   I could contact the land registry to find out who the land owner is. If I contact them directly maybe they'll tell me if they have a contract in place. If they ignore my request too then should I be doing other things to find this out?
    • I'm trying to work through this step-by-step as I read the story again. There was a dispute over a will in respect of your grandfather's house but the dispute was eventually abandoned and it seems that the house was apportioned to your mother and her brother who presumably were the only two children. The will was unsigned and so we could say that the house passed to the two of them under the rules of intestacy. You then decided to buy the house for £50,000 and presumably the money you paid was divided between your mother and your uncle – who were the owners of the house. This was in 1999. We talking about 20 years ago here and so in respect of most legal questions I would have thought that some limitation period applied. (However the issue of the trust has been raised – and this wouldn't be affected by limitation) However, presumably the house was bought at a proper value given the market at the time and any work that it needed doing. Presumably the house was properly conveyed. Although a lot of things have passed – including home improvements, tenancies et cetera, from the store you have told us, neither your parents nor your uncle have been involved in this at all. Now you have received a letter from your parents saying that the house is really theirs and that you have simply been holding it on trust for them and they now want it back. Is this a reasonable summary of what has happened?   Although you have written a fair bit about bills, tenancies, and that you have lived in your parents home for some of this 30 years, I'm not sure what relevance that has to the problem. I have to say that your explanation is very unclear. A bit rambling in fact. If you think that part of the story is relevant then maybe you'd like to express it all a little more clearly and say in what way you think it is relevant to the problem. You are much more familiar with the story then I am but I don't see that those factors are terribly important on the brief understanding that I have. if if any money is owed to your parents because of you having lived with them et cetera then it seems to me that that is a separate matter and has nothing to do with your ownership of the property. You say that you have received a letter from solicitors claiming first of all that there is a constructive trust or that you might be subject to a proprietary estoppel. In terms of the estoppel, that doctrine is only available in very particular circumstances and could not be used to attack you in any event. Estoppel, whether it is proprietary or promissory can only be used as a defence. So the question of estoppel in this situation is completely irrelevant, in my view, although I don't see any basis for one in any event. So what remains is the possibility of a constructive trust. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that there is such a trust and I think that the first question needs to be asked is on what basis they consider that there is a constructive trust. Secondly, of course, even if there was a constructive trust, on the basis of what you have told us, it wouldn't only be your mother who was the beneficiary, it would also be your uncle. Furthermore, if you were a constructive trustee then at the very least you would be entitled to recover all of the expenses that you had laid out over 30 years – including the cost of the property plus interest – less any financial benefit that you had accrued from renting it out and so forth. I'm not sure how good this analysis is. This is well out of my experience – but I would suggest that you consider it and see whether any of it rings true. I would also start making a very detailed account of all the money which you have spent over the years on the property and also a detailed account of all the benefits you have accrued from it. I would supply this to their solicitor that if you end up having to instruct your own lawyer then I'm sure that you may be asked for this if there is any suspicion that a constructive trust may exist. Frankly it sounds like a load of rubbish to me that we will be very interested if you will keep us up to date. So there you have it. No particular answers. Just a few unsupported and unqualified opinions    
    • Hello and welcome to CAG.   I agree with dx, hiring a lawyer is unlikely to help as most of them don't understand fare matters, so you end up paying for their learning curve.   Your idea about involving your GP is a good one, it sounds as if you need their input with how you're feeling. And if they would write a supporting letter that could help too. Hopefully your medical information will be through in time.   HB
  • Our picks


United Utilities, Equifax default for old address after 8 years, ICO say ok

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1343 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

Please does anyone have any advice on this?


The facts as they have been reported to me:


Mr X leaves the property in 2008.

Mrs X remains at the property and there is a verbal agreement

that she will transfer the utility bills to her name.

Mr X still legally owns the property until it is repossesed by the bank in 2010.


In 2015 Mr X obtains a copy of his Equifax credit report and discovers that United Utilities have registered a default dated March 2015.


Unitied Utilities will not remove the default as they say Mr X did not notify them he had moved/was no longer responsible for the water charges at the property.


The ICO have today sent this response:


Dear Mr X,


I write further to my email of 19 February.


Based on the evidence provided, I consider that it is likely that United Utilities has complied with its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in this case.


I feel it may be useful to explain that a default on a credit file means that an organisation considers the relationship between itself and the individual to have broken down.


United Utilities has explained that whilst the last payment was made in 2007,

they had been attempting to chase the debt and a default notice was only issued in February 2015

when collections activity was deemed exhausted

and the relationship was deemed broken down.


United Utilities has explained that the credit for £268.88 was a false credit

and has confirmed that that the default date of 14 March 2015

and default balance of £3093 were accurate

and up to date at the time it was shared with Equifax.



United Utilities has explained that they acted on the information available to them

as you did not inform them that you had ceased being responsible for charges at xxxxxxxxxxxxx until May 2015.


I understand that while the default will remain,

United Utilities will request amendments to your credit file to reflect the subsequent information received by you.


I appreciate you may be disappointed by this,

but I hope the information provided above explains the reasons for our decision.


Yours sincerely,


Adele Roper

Lead Case Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office

01625 545 774


Is there anything to stop a company registering a default from so long ago, or would there be if an agreement was regulated by the CCA? Is there any point Mr X arguing that he did not take out a credit agreement with United Utilities? I believe that utilities companies have only recently been allowed to 'share' data with credit reference agencies, so it's not something Mr X would have agreed to/been aware of upon opening the account.


Thanks for reading.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

utter cobblers and the ICO clearly doesnt understand about when a default applies from.

tell them you want to appeal the decision to a higher levelas you should not be held responsible for the water co's inability to understand that the repossession of the property and the bank taking it back is enough to show that the relationship had broken down and that UU were aware of all of this at that time because it is in their other obligations to the new consumer at that address.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a document which shows united utilities remove charges which are statute barred after 6 years. If the last payment and thats the critical point, was 2007 then its statute barred from the relevant month in 2013





I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.




GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled


Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments guys.


United Utilities has since telephoned to say they will be removing the default completely. I don't know the reason behind this. I can only guess it got passed to a dept with an ounce of discretion/reasonableness. Not impressed with the ICO response at all - seems they are willing to let companies report defaults on historical accounts indeterminately, with no regard to the difficulties this can cause to consumers who thought their debt problems were behind them (and/or those who had no idea of an alledged debt from an old address).

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...