Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Peter, You are spot on. Todays email. Dear _______ Thank you for confirming that you are to investigate my allegations that the bank has breached Data Protection laws and also disregarded ICO guidance. Further to my letter of complaint submitted yesterday 21/01/2021 I wish to include that in 2019 the bank rejected my claim that the balance was statute barred as of sometime in 2014. The bank never provided its reasoning behind the rejection other than implying that a termination was ‘never’ served in 2008 and that the balance was legally recoverable. Could you please confirm whether you continue to believe that the balance was never statute barred pursuant Sec 6 para 3 Limitation Act 1980 as I believe your intention was to mislead and justify your continued regime off filing a status of 6 on my credit file. Yours Sincerely
-
It seems to be epidemic. ahem A record, stating payment arrangement or as in Pauls case condition 6 is put on the file ,then instead of dropping off after six years, it appears as a defaulted live account. Which means that they record a default and also pursue the debt in court. All because of what seems to me, to be an error in the GDPR drafting, or more likely translation from its German origin. I had an argument on the phone with link recently about them recording an arrangement marker, then changing it to a default after six years. It was about the relative harm in recording markers when a default should have been registered. He seemed the think the AR marker had little or no effect !!, when in many ways it is worse than an aged default. Because it means the subject has recently been through an assessment which confirmed all his disposable income has been used. so what would he use to pay off further credit? A default just indicates that sometime in the past there were problems.
-
By yellowplum · Posted
Thanks, I think they did comply partially with the order of 2018, they send the agreement to the court and some paperwork (well this is what the call handler said to me) but they didn't say anything more. I will have a look around for more items over the weekend and take stock on Monday. Think I may email the court and state that I haven't received anything, see if they put that on the file too. Should have added, when I was reading over all the documents I did find and the letter and stuff asking for copies of the original agreement etc from the solicitor and proof of sale from Lloyds to Lowell - nothing has even been sent to me. -
I'll get it checked. Fingers crossed it's still the same.
-
Topic moved to Postal and Delivery Services Forum
-
-
Our picks
-
Post in Court Claim Against Hermes - item sent via Packlink was lost/tampered with **WON**
jj58 posted a post in a topic,
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!
Picked By
BankFodder, -
-
***Hermes and mediation hints ***
BankFodder posted a topic in Postal and Delivery Services,
Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003-
- 1 reply
Picked By
BankFodder, -
-
Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help
waz70 posted a topic in NatWest Bank,
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
Picked By
waz70, -
-
Hermes lost parcel. **WON**
murraynt posted a topic in Postal and Delivery Services,
Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/-
- 49 replies
-
-
Old and new CTAX LO's and dodgy Fees & ROG - Rossendales URGENT
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now