Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The FCA has publicly censured Premier FX Limited (Premier FX) for failing to safeguard its customers’ money and for misuse of its payment accounts under the Payments Services Regulations. In doing so, Premier FX seriously misled its customers about the services it was authorised to provide and how it held customers’ money. View the full article
    • I have sent a response to quote that and also say that i will be submitting my already prepared claim to the county court   Thanks for the quick response! I will see what happens next
    • The High Street-only retailer says it has lost £1.1bn in sales due to the recent lockdown. View the full article
    • Ignore it.   Or,   If it were me I would send in the following email  
    • Below is the response i have received to the emailed version of the letter of claim.  They should get the actual letter today       Thank you for contacting our Executive Office team. My name is Gavin and your email has been received and I have personally been asked to investigate this matter for you.   I’m very sorry this has happened, and I would really like to help you with this today by assisting you in making a claim, should you wish to do so.   I can see that this parcel was booked through Packlink Shipping. Packlink use our network to send their parcels through, but they are an independent shipper and any enquiries about their parcels need to go directly to them.   Here is the link to the Packlink website and claims department: https://support-ebay.packlink.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360014270619   You can also make contact with Packlink with the links below.   • eBay Delivery Help Center: https://support-ebay.packlink.com/hc/en-gb • Packlink Help Center: https://support.packlink.com/hc/en-gb   I hope this helps you to get your Packlink enquiry resolved.   Kind regards,        
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Information Commissioner guidelines on filing defaults with credit reference agencies


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1674 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

The following attachment contains guidelines on filing defaults with credit reference agencies. It was published in 2007.

 

guidance_on_defaults.pdf

 

These guidelines have now been superseded by a new set which apparently have been drafted by the credit reference agencies themselves but with approval and apparently "close involvement" of the information Commissioner.

 

high_level_prinicples_document_final.pdf

 

You can spot the difference because the original 2007 version is on information Commissioner headed notepaper and the information Commissioner claims responsibility for it.

 

The more recent 2014 revised version contains merely a "foreword" by the Information Commissioner.

 

Of particular interest is the clear difference in approach to disputed accounts.

 

The 2007 guidance gives very clear directions as the steps to be followed when deciding whether or not to refer a disputed account to the credit reference agency file.

 

The 2014 guidance appears to be completely silent on this matter.

 

Although this important issue has clearly been deliberately excluded from the more recent guidance, you should remember that first of all – this is only guidance. Secondly, the original 2007 guidelines make it clear that the entering of a disputed account on to a credit reference agency file risks breaching the legal requirement of – accuracy.

 

Although the subject of disputed files has been omitted from recent guidance, "accuracy" is still a lawful requirement for all entries placed onto credit files. This means that the steps which the 2007 document advises should be taken, are still relevant and we feel that where there is an account which is subject of a valid dispute – as per the 2007 guidance, that this should not be referred to the CRA's.

 

We appreciate that this places some organisations in great difficulty because it must take a great deal of time and judgement to make the right decisions. However, we are also fully aware that many organisations are really quite cavalier about the status of disputed accounts and will even use the credit reference agency as a stick to beat troublesome customers with.

 

If you feel that you have a marker which has been unlawfully placed on your credit file because you have a valid dispute – such as a mobile phone provider failing to carry out their side of the bargain, then you should read the two guidance documents above – and keep the 2007 version very much in mind.

 

Just because the 2007 version has been revised, it does not mean that it has no validity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cheers for that.

yes, statute (Con Credit Act) re disputed a/c's (notices of correction), and accuracy.

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...