Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

hollysmum

cabot old £7k HFC Bank OD - now ruthbridge letter - never had HFC OD

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 373 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

My husband received a letter from this shower on Friday morning, telling him that he owed over £7k on a current account with HFC Bank.

 

To the very best of his knowledge, he's never had any sort of account with HFC

- is a "prove it" letter in order to start with?

 

We intend telling them that he denies it is his debt, in any case.

 

Thank you all so much. Catherine

 

Just adding to my own post

- I have looked again at the letter from Ruthbridge

- it accompanies one from the lovely Cabot Financial, which is telling my husband that, as they have not come to a mutual agreement with him to repay "his" debt, they are passing it on to Ruthbridge.

 

There is no account number given for this alleged current account with HFC Bank, only a reference number from Ruthbridge.

 

I'm inclined to think that this is a phishing exercise

- he's never had anything from Cabot about anything.

 

Thank you again.

Catherine.

Edited by dx100uk
merge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start off by sending them an SAR


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pers i'd be sending the SB letter if hes paid nowt in over 6yrs.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

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

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

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

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They must be phishing,

 

 

I've had a similar letter from Ruthbridge albeit accompanied by an introduction letter to them via Cabot on an alleged debt where the last communication with the original OC was 2003 (no correspondence from anyone else ever until now, with the best will in this would have been stat barred since 2009.


I reside in Dawlish Warren but am not a rabbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the op needs to send something else sure as eggs is eggs

if he's moved since taking this out and neither the OC nor any DCA have been informed in writing about his new address they'll go for a backdoor CCJ at the last registered one to HFC


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

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

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

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

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-reading the Ops thread, it's an exact replica (procedure/info) and participants (cabot/ruthbridge).

 

 

My course of action will be my sending the letter back to them (taking a copy of it first) also enlcosing a stat barred letter (template from here)

+ informing them I've retained a proof of postage which 'should' leave Ruthbridge with a clear way forward on how not to proceed.

 

 

What I won't be doing is responding to anything else they may want to send but instead simply send it back 'return to sender'

 

 

Ruthbridge's letter is a little ambiguous (for fca purposes I guess) with terms such as 'to avoid any further action' quite what 'action' they can take once

the star barred letter is sent remains to be seen


I reside in Dawlish Warren but am not a rabbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning again, and thank you for all the replies thus far.

 

We've done an SAR for this and also checked hubby's credit record.

 

Nothing at all on there in respect of HFC Bank, as we suspected.

 

There have been some calls on both our landline and on his mobile from Ruthbridge this past week, but of course, we've not responded - it's all been recordings, in any case, no "real" person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning!

 

My husband has been receiving letters from Ruthbridge (on behalf of Cabot) in respect of an alleged HFC Bank debt of over £7000.

We've checked his credit record, no evidence that he's ever done any sort of business with HFC, and he didn't even recognise "HFC Bank" in any case.

 

I suspect strongly that they are fishing for business, as the response to his SAR request was a pile of paperwork from Cabot demanding to know everything about him and wanting him to supply various documents to prove his identity to back this up before they could comply with the SAR.

 

To me, this smacks of "we don't know that you are actually the person we're looking for".

My instinct is to ignore this latest Cabot letter.

We have also written to Ruthbridge telling them to remove my husband's mobile phone number and our private landline number from their records - we didn't give these to them - as we've had a selection of those "recorded" phone calls from them during the late evenings.

 

We also think it's quite funny that, having phoned him and written to him, they then ask for his address and phone number!!!

Have we done the right things so far?

Thank you all very much.

Catherine.

Edited by Andyorch
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything showing on his Credit Records with the CRA's? It could be a faulty trace as in any J jones will do so long as they grab the hook.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, brassnecked - yes, we've checked his credit record - nothing at all for HFC, which is why we believe they are fishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure otheres will be along soon with further advice, personally I would ignore them now but log and keep all texts and communications as if he is not the debtor, you might be able to clobber team with GDPR breach and harassment later. Might be worth a Cease and Desist stating all communications are being logged and any further calls/emails txt etc will be construed as Harassment hubby not being the named debtor, and will be reported to appropriate authorities including ICO all others will know more about that tactic.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threads merged...please do not start multiple threads on the same issue.

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as stated before it pointless sending an SAR to a DCA

 

just send our SB letter as advised earlier

that put the DCA in a tight spot wit regard to providing the info required

and the owness is then on them to do the running around to prove otherwise.

 

for want of info..HFC did actually do many standard bank accouts, and would certainly have NEVER let an OD get too £7k..

i will guess if anything this is a current account plus..which was actually a LOAN.

but eitherway its not his ...so tough luck cabot.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

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

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

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

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you dx - I realised a bit late that the SAR was probably not the way forward with this! I don't really want us to get into "letter ping pong", as it really isn't my husband's debt. He's never had any account with HFC. We've checked his credit record - nothing. I think we'll just let them fester for the time being. Many thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wont be on his credit record if it was defaulted more than 6yrs ago.

 

pers I would send the letter

ot wanting to get into letter tennis is a bit like shutting the gate after the horse has run down the road.

..you've already done that with the SAR …

 

send the SB letter.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

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

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

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

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning, dx - should we send an SB letter even if it's not his debt anyway? The wording of the latest missive from both Ruthbridge and Cabot suggests that they actually don't know if they've got the right person - "....we need to confirm that you are the person....." This is definitely not my husband's debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SB to them? would make them think they have the right person (admittance) ??????????????????????????:evil:


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Old Cogger - that's what I thought, that if we SB them, it will be assumed that he's confirming it was his debt all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morning, dx - should we send an SB letter even if it's not his debt anyway? The wording of the latest missive from both Ruthbridge and Cabot suggests that they actually don't know if they've got the right person - "....we need to confirm that you are the person....." This is definitely not my husband's debt.

 

Just ignore them....if they are not sure they wont escalate it further...and definitely not if Ruthbridge are involved ( Ruthbridge are Cabots waste bin for unenforceable debts not qualifying for court claims)

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all I was thinking was if the letter states I ack no debt etc across the top etc

 

it would put it to bed

as it appears to be troubling the OP>

 

admittance or not.. that makes no odds .. iys statute barred and they'd have to prove otherwise

and when they did, it would prove [or they would have too subsequently prove] who made the payments.

and ofcourse it would not be the OP's OH..

 

but ignoring is just as good


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

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

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

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

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair enough, dx - what I really want to avoid is further stress on my poor hubby - he suffers chronic illness, unfortunately, and idiots like these two are things he could do without. He's happy to leave things be for now - at least the phone calls have stopped!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just remember that under the new CONC rules

once told the debt is SB, and if they agree [or cant prove otherwise] they must CEASE all comms

 

that was what I was looking at.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

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

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

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

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, got that, and, as always, my thanks to everyone who's replied to me on here.

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...