Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He is correct, though that only a judge can order him to refund the money.   You can’t complain about him saying only a judge can order it: that’s what the County Courts do - adjudicate disputes. You can complain that the guidelines make it clear what the outcome will be, so his behaviour is unreasonable.   ”That, Sir” (or Madam), “is the crux of why we are here. I suggest it is inevitable that you will find the refund must be made, and the Defendant should have seen that, but their intransigence has led to this matter reaching you”.  
    • Always have your door locked, to avoid anyone getting in without your permission.   Enforcement Officers (Bailiffs) are allowed to make peaceful entry into a private address, but they should announce who they are (name, job role and company) and the reason for their attendance at your address.   As soon as they were told that the person they were seeking was not living at the address, they should have asked politely for more information.  Once they were aware they were at the wrong address they should have apologised and left.    The conduct you describe would be professional misconduct and would not involve the Police.  The Enforcement Officer had a legal right to be seeking the debtor, so nothing criminal.  As Marston have appeared to reject your complaint you could contact CIVEA.   https://www.civea.co.uk/complaints
    • important – sometimes a default is good news! Defaults sound bad, right? So getting one removed must be good? This is probably the most confusing thing of all, but No! It can often be better to have a default on your credit record.  If there is a default against a debt, then the whole debt will “drop off” your file after six years, even if you haven’t repaid the debt. With no default, the record will not go away until six years after it is marked as settled/satisfied in some way. So don’t rush into trying to get a default removed… and never try to get a default date changed to a later one because it will wreck your credit record for longer
    • We will of course be informing the Court that we are LIP and the costs we have had to incur due to the unreasonable behaviour of the defendant including forcing us to incur costs and further costs, and refusing to deal with the LBC.   On a more ethical tone the firm of solicitors noted here are correct in the interpretation of the law as it stood since March 2019,   https://www.ellisjones.co.uk/blog/article/what-is-the-current-effect-of-coronavirus-on-my-wedding-contract   Goosedale the defendant has been given all these facts and informed that our daughter was married in a Civil ceremony last year with 15 Guests, hence they are not only wasting Court time but have cost us severe distress, inconvenience and loss of money to date, all which will be dealt with at a Hearing now. where the Defendant stated only a Judge can make the order to make him refund the money, hence his actions have caused immense waste of Court time and is an abuse of the Court Process, shame on Goosedale and equally shame on DWF what a joke !!   CMA have given the correct interpretation of the law - THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO KEEP A SINGLE PENNY THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANYTHING FOR they have known this since March 2019.      
  • Our picks

    • 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
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 421 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,

 

I'm looking for some GDPR advice. I went through Tenant referencing 2yrs ago for a property I was moving too. I received a reference from my landlord that wasn't exactly glowing, but his comments were disputed by me. Despite this, I was accepted for the property. 

 

Now, I'm moving again and have had to use the same tenant referencing company. They have again used the old reference to make a decision, as well as the latest one. When I asked them why previous references were being used they said it was policy to include previous information. When I asked how long they use old references for, they replied saying unfortunately it always carries over.

 

Surely this is a breach of GDPR as they can't keep information about me indefinitely can they? As far as I was aware information should only be retained for no longer than is necessary for the purposes of which it was processed.

 

Can anyone advise please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, my latest reference was good, so my issue is that they're always going to fail me based the old reference, but that reference was supplied for the purpose of the 1st referencing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...