Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi.   What reason/s have they given you for declining please?   HB
    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

EE Cifas marker for non payment


Recommended Posts

Looking for some advice, back in 2015 I bought a ee sim card for data not a mobile phone and it was not on a contract it was a monthly thing where as I understood I paid £20 and had 20gb of data to use.

I stopped topping up after 2 months and the data stopped,

 

after applying for a c/c I was refused and my bank account was cancelled and I was told to check CIFAS file and was shocked to find

 

First party fraud - (Opening an account or other facility for a fraudulent purpose or the fraudulent misuse of an account or facility;

or taking out an insurance policy for a fraudulent purpose or the fraudulent misuse of an insurance policy and/or insurance policy documentation)

 

Which looks like they are saying I opened my bank account to commit fraud, I had the bank account 7 years before.

 

So any ideas how I go about getting this removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

we will need more details of how the phone sim and bank account are linked and why insurance seems to be what they are grouching about.

 

Start at the beginning,

name the bank and phone provider and whilst you are at it go through your bank statements to see if there is anything that resembles what you are accused of.

 

Also look at your credit files and see who has been  putting their feet all over it.

 

if you have a great block of red ink courtesy of a phone provider then that will be the link

but also understand that you might not have bought a data contract but some other product linked to the phone or not connected to it in any way

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a data sim because my internet in the house was down

I bought the sim from EE and used it in a data module that I also bought from ee at a cost of £100,

They performed a credit check so had to give them my nationwide bank details for this.

 

It was just a sim card

no phone or module or insurance,

it was £20 per month on a rolling contract where they took the £20 in advance for the data.

 

On my credit file they have a default of non payment of £20 dating back to 2016

Link to post
Share on other sites

that doesn't tell us enough about activity on your bank account nor about any other red marks on your credit file.

 

The CIFAS marker isn't about a phone contract so what exactly was the contract for? 

you say data but that will come under a service contract so would it be possible to use massive amounts of data improperly and then not pay for it?

 

what about your bank account, were you in the red?

were you paying funds into the account from recognised sources like salary.

Did you have any other DD's on that account.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I do not understand

It was for a data sim card where EE took £20 in advance for 20gb of data each month on a month by month rolling contract

 once I had used the data it would switch off so impossible to use any more than I had already paid for.

If I wanted to carry on using it i would have to log on and pay another £20.

 

I used the service for a few months and then did not renew the contract and heard no more 

 

My bank account was used for ID purposes only and was my main bank account with all my wages and d/d and held for 7 years plus, no insurance was taken out and no other accounts opened.

 

This is my point EE have listed this and has no connected with the data they have entered

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i bet it wasn't a rolling monthly contract with a free data device..

i bet it was a 12 or 24month contract as long as you paid the £20 sum PCM for the duration of the contract.

 

dx

 

 

.

 

dx

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

It was defiantly a rolling contact because it was had to be renewed each month,  I had to log onto an account and load £20 there was no D/D  and I bought a data device.

 

The cifas entry appears to say I used a bank account for fraudulent purpose

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so the cifas marker was nowt to do with EE and doesn't have their name either

so i cant see why thats even been mentioned here.

 

 

so the bank did it for some reason.

did you have any large monetary sums go in that were not wages.

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

The marker is from EE, I did not even know I had it until i tried to upgrade my bank account and got turned down and then had my account froze and then closed

 

National Fraud Database entry filed by:

EE Ltd t/a T-Mobile(UK)

 

Application date:27 November2015

 

Date recorded:27 April 2016

 

Product relating to the application,proposal,account or facility:

Communications- Mobile Phone Facility: Granted Case type: Misuse of facility

Link to post
Share on other sites

SEND ee AN SAR

 

DX

 

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

I suspect you are going to find out that you (or at least EE will argue that you) did not sign up to a rolling contract that needed you to renew it each month, but that you signed up to some other arrangement that required you to continue monthly payments until it either expired or you cancelled it as per their T&Cs.

 

Or EE have simply made a mistake  

Link to post
Share on other sites

EE have a habit of doing this. If you stop paying in some cases they add CIFAS Markers...

Its wrong. Have you sorted your Bank Account? Who did you go with? Itll drop off the record after Apr 2022. 

 

In this case i think it can be challenged. Maybe email the CEO? 

CEOEmail.com

 

I can help draft something on this for you.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks my account has been closed and I have to go into branch to get my balance and savings back as they wanted to send me a cheque and it was Nationwide.

 

If you could help with a draft that would be fantastic as I really do not know where to start.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

an update and so more help with the above topic,

 

I have managed to speak to someone about the issue and it turns out I was right and the default was placed in error as I had bought the device and was on a pay as you go data plan and had paid for all services I had used.

 

The lady from ee confirmed this and the default has been removed from my credit file.

However the entry on the cifas database has not as this needs to be done via EE credit referrals but they have no phone number and only an email address.

 

I have had no reply from them so want to know who/how I go about contacting to get help so any ideas

Link to post
Share on other sites

eh? why couldn't EE do it themselves interdept?

seems a bit odd that the sufferer has to run around and undo their mistakes and ring the right people up!

 

what a company!!

 

 

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

This sounds like a very serious error and you should be looking for compensation.

 

I suggest that you send them and SAR - and then if you want we can help you go from there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update I have managed to speak to someone from the fraud team who maintain they were within their rights to upload a fraud entry but having looked at the account again they will remove said entry. While this is a great outcome I still feel it is wrong they can upload a fraud marker because they * think* I took out an account to defraud them when it was a pay as you go dongle so impossible to get anything more than i paid for.

 

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me.

 

This account was taken out on 27 November 2015 for a Dongle on a 30 day commitment. You do have to call to cancel the agreement and give the required 30 days’ notice which I can see from my records you did so however this was the day after payment was due .

 

I can confirm our Fraud Team have removed the Fraud Flag. This particular CIFAS flag is loaded when an account is cancelled for non-payment after the first bills were paid .

 

The loading itself is for evasion of payment which means that you had entered into a contract with EE, with no intention to pay. Therefore, this fits under first party fraud, misuse of the facility.

 

The CIFAS entry was loaded correctly, however, as the balance has been adjusted, they have removed the entry from CIFAS.

 

Any lenders viewing a brand-new copy of your report, dated after 21 August 2020, via Experian, TransUnion or Equifax will no longer see the information.

 

 

If you would like to talk to us

If you’d like to talk to me about this, or anything in my email, please call me on 0800079 0232. I am in the office this week until tomorrow 9.30am to 5.30pm.

 

Thanks again Thomas for getting in touch. I stay safe.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/08/2020 at 21:45, TOMMIEBOY said:

Date recorded:27 April 2016

 

imho you should be seeking compo.

 

a mobile phone contract or indeed any contract supplier should not be allowed to enter a cifas marker at all in mymind.

 

next we'll have the ruddy private parking companies doing it for speculative invoices!!

 

dx

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...