Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
    • The streaming giant also said it added 9.3 million subscribers in the first three months of the year.View the full article
  • 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

False linked addresses from J D Williams?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1125 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

Hello all,

 

From 2012 to 2019 J D Williams has posted false linked addresses to my Experian credit report on seven occassions.

These arise as a result of third-party fraud associated with their online credit account, which is available through a number of brands.

 

I have a good understanding of how the fraudsters operate, and why the false linked addresses arise, and am alert to the problem: its a long story, but I'm sure you get the picture and can guess at the resulting problems with debt collectors.

 

The failure of J D Williams to prevent recurrence of the problem despite promises to put a stop to it in 2014 and 2017 is now the subject of a FOS complaint and I am awaiting the outcome. This is driven by my conclusion, as others have said, that J D Williams governance, policies, process and systems focus on winning business, and that their investment in winning business is not matched by investment in fraud prevention or implementation of FCA requirements. Its interesting that I don't have this problem with any other online retailer.

 

If anyone similar experience is willing to share it with me please send me a private message.

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope sorry pm will not be allowed

please keep things in the open

 

thank you

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

open

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update for anyone interested ... the FOS investigated my complaint and in September 2020 made a decision in my favour. J D Williams & Company Limited were instructed to pay £500 for the trouble caused.  All was fine until February 2021 when another false linked address was placed on my credit record by J D Williams t/a Jacomo - the 8th time since 2012.  Here we go again ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you bothering to go to the FOS in this case?

If you've already proved one incident, then it seems to me that you could go directly to the County Court on the basis of a breach of data protection and you can sue for considerably more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think so, wouldn't you?

 

However, I made a complaint to the ICO at the same time as the successful one to the FOS. The ICO complaint was rejected even though they acknowledged certain concerns about the way my personal data was handled.  Not being happy with this outcome I asked the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to review the ICO decision, but the PHSO view was that the ICO was correct according to their terms-of-reference as regulator.

 

It appears that it is not as easy as one might think to prove infringement of data protection rights in the consumer finance context because there is an inherent inequality between big business and private individuals e.g. in terms of their right to create, process, store and retrieve your information. This makes it extremely difficult for individuals to discover and document evidence about business failures with sufficient rigour to prove their case. This is clear from many cases discussed on this forum.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's always a problem with "terms of reference".

This is why court actions simply going directly to the relevant statute are far more straightforward because you know what your target is and also everything is transparent. The trouble with the FOS and the ICO see you don't really get to see what the other side is telling them. It's very unsatisfactory

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...