Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.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
      • 160 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

barclays - Entered Wrongful adverse Credit info - complained to FCA/ICO - FOS ruled in our favour - but consequential loss are? PAPLOC issued now

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 114 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Good Afternoon

We have just succeeded with an Ombudsman claim upheld in our full favour.

A refunded claim amount plus interest and a 4 figure compensation amount have been instructed to be paid. 
They have also been told to rework our credit files to reflect being in a position where the transactions and any consequences of the transactions didn’t take place.

For us that’s a bit of an open statement as the consequences have been huge.

I’ll use the example:

12 months ago a payment of £5000 should have been refunded to us by the bank. it was reported at the time yet it took 6 months for them to start the process. About 5 months back they pay refund in full advising it’s a refunded payment. We withdraw the much needed money and left the account balance at £0 with intent to close it.

Two weeks later a letter is received advising after completing the investigation they actually hold my partner liable and will reclaim the £5000 payment which they call a temporary refund, having already advised it being a refund payment from the team carrying out the investigation. They provide nothing evidence wise as to why or how she is liable or any explanation as to what’s been looked into.

They withdraw the amount (no overdraft set) and take the account into an-unauthorised overdraft. Despite numerous warning of hardship, and potential for it to affect mine and her credit scores they ignored it and left the account OD. Even requested they hold or freeze account till the complaint was resolved, again ignored.

Month 1 adverse credit marker, month 2,3, 4, 5 same and 6 due soon. Both scores dropped massively. Ombudsman investigation is only into the initial investigation and outcome into the amount reported to the bank.

The bank upheld and ordered as stated above. Now the compensation only takes into account the investigation and outcome of it, and not the actions resulting of short/long term consequence of what their actions caused.

Consequentially the credit scores dropping has prevented finance applications, remortgages and resulting rate increases for both account holders. Adverse markers on the account I believe can still be visible up to 12 years on the account even if removed 

How do you put a measure on these consequences and the potential for it to impact for months or longer.

My partners credit card had late payments during this period due to the £5000 not being available, could this be argued a consequence too?

It’s been a horrible year and the amount of hours she’s put in to this over that period is very extensive which are all consequences with stress and worry over late payment letters etc. 

Can anyone help at all and thank you from us, happy to provide any more info needed.

For the record the FCA are investigating their conduct, the ICO have a case with them as well and the FOS have upheld in our favour. They don’t care!!





Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say that I don't fully understand what has happened and your account which is an extensive narrative seems to be rather  confusing and seems to miss out important aspects of the story.

Maybe if you could go through carefully and tell us exactly what has happened from the beginning then we could start to help.

Please try to reduce the narrative. We aren't able to start looking at enormously long posts.

Try a bullet pointed chronology of what has happened and we can start from there

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Good Evening

i requested an SAR from Barclays Bank following an ongoing almost 12 month old complaint involving the ICO and FO.

I received 290 plus pages however it was evidently short of information.

For example there were no email exchanges between me and the bank, there was no log of calls made, online chat conversations and no details at all relating to the complaint (logging of, investigating, outcome letters), for all intent you wouldn’t know it had been raised.

They were written to immediately advising of the data missing,no acknowledgment was received or further data supplied. The 30 days / one calendar month has expired now by a good 2 weeks.

There was also a GDPR issue sent to them where the bank have disclosed investigation notes in evidence to the FOS, the adjudicator has stated the notes contain references to another consumers complaint within my notes, meaning also my notes could be present in that consumers data. Of all people, the bank disclosed this to the ombudsman highlighting a complete incompetence in their investigation.

I reported this to the ICO who said I must report this to the bank and give them 30days as they have to investigate and make the other party aware but it amounted to an inaccurate disclose at least. This was also reported to the bank and that 30 day period has expired now with again no acknowledgment from them at all.

Some of the missing data withheld is preventing me approaching CRAs to deal with adverse payment marks applied to the account unlawfully by the bank affecting both account holders credits for 6 months now.

we were declined for mortgages and any credit at all as a result, both individual and as business directors.

The ombudsman have asked the bank twice now but they have ignored their requests to put their actions right and rework the credit scores. 

what is best now they have failed in their statutory duty to disclose?



Link to post
Share on other sites

threads merged.


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

  • dx100uk changed the title to barclays - Adverse Account, Credit Ruined, HELP PLS
  • 2 months later...

Good Evening All

12 months ago issues began with barclays bank, exhausted the internal complaints then referred to FOS in Feb.

slow process with responses taking over 4 weeks from them, information not provided  and it got referred to an ombudsman august time after they failed to supply info requested 

their limited powers on compensation meant there were elements of the claim not taken into account and it was suggested legal may be the more suitable option 

we filed LBA giving 14 days, a week in we received a response from an external solicitor to which they requested we don’t issue forms until they sent a formal response.

They continue and state that rules state 3 months is reasonable for us to wait, they the ask again that we do not issue until they respond - but if we do issue then send it directly to them. We responded saying as per the letter we give 14 days

2 days prior to the 14 days another email which again requests that we do not issue until they respond.in the least convincing statement ever they say “we hope to be able to provide a response to you as soon as possible”. “Hope and soon as” 

My question is  why are they so worried and against the forms going being issued.

Their client knows the issues and in 12 months they have refused at all to enter discussions and defended their position, nothing could have changed, in theory they would defend and have no issue with submitting.

They shouldn’t have delayed the response until day 14 if they were going to defend and it has to be grossly unfair to ask for longer and request we hold off if they are going to write back and respond claiming as per previous letters we proceed to court.

why are they so against the claim being issued and for what reason would they need such a long time to decide.

I can only presume settlement being 1 option and the going through paperwork to see the strength of case?


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that it is not at all clear from your post what your questions about.

I see that you have a thread already running involving Barclays bank. Does your question relate to that issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it amazes me how someone can type 4/5 pages of info and actually tell people nothing. and expect them to guess what advice they need.




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

Hi Bf yes it does relate to the same matter it’s just moved to the LBA stage

dx I appreciate you taking the time to comment and I know you are well versed and with respect I thought my point was clear but BF politely says the same so I apologise for the confusion ok

why would they request 3 months to respond to the LBA when they have defended the case throughout.

Why have they requested 3 times to not issue claim till they responded

I would assume the bank already knew before they passed the case to an external legal team where they proceed next 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to barclays - Entered Wrongful adverse Credit info - complained to FCA/ICO - FOS ruled in our favour - but consequential loss are? PAPLOC issued now

threads merged again.

so what was your PAPLOC for please?

can you post it up please im getting to understand the story but the way you wander around explaining things is a wee bit confusing to everyone.



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

remove what, you also have 2 usernames?



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 is unhelpful that you are using two username. It is clearly confusing you and it is causing extra work for us.

Please will you decide which account you want and we will merge them

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have issued your claim, please can you post up the claim form in PDF format. The original please

Link to post
Share on other sites

no just at PPLOC stage @BankFodder

that paploc above (now a pdf as docx has all your pers details in file/info)

is FAR FAR FAR too long 

thats a witness statement!!




  • Thanks 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

cut it right down simply to the main point of why you are going to launch a court claim.

it might well be best to get your poc ready too then send the paploc so you are ready to launch the claim on day 15 if they dont respond.


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

Apologies dx May have been unclear from the last waffle post.

we issued that PAPLOC 16 days back, 9 days after we received an email asking we do not issue claim until they respond  (stating 3 months is reasonable)

day 12 they again wrote to ask we don’t issue until their client responds “we hope to send this as soon as possible”

day 14 we received confirmation from the FOS to confirm that the number of pages the bank state to us contained inaccurate data on was not one page, it was 4. 

bank disclosed doc to fos on investigation,

fos confirm multiple pages of doc contain another consumer complaint,

reported to ico as inaccurate data,  bank “redact”

due to send to us via fos 1700 pages to fos and less than 500 to us,

fos confirm all pages useful to us completely removed,  

bank write in complaint outcome stating “a single email of another consumer only was in file”,

bank refer us to FOS to confirm his “multiple entries he confirmed were present”,

we approach fos and bank have prohibited fos from confirming there were multiple pages stating confidential information,

fos eventually confirm with us 4 pages not one contained the info..

the bank have drummed down their breach and reported as a single error to ico knowing the fos were only people who knew and tried to stop them disclosing.

Appears they have manipulated or destroyed all the data originally sent to fos leaving just one email.

we wrote back to bank yesterday raising this new info from the fos and giving 7 days before now issuing.

Their claim was that the other costumers info had been entered in error onto our file and had been noticed and removed from their system. they then say “however this information was still included in the information that was sent to the fos”

they say it was an isolated manual error. - quite how it’s deleted and removed off the system and can then find its way back into the file is extraordinary!!


Can I upload the POC to check?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep the experts will check it for you.

put it here as text in a msg not a pdf so's it can be edited.




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.       Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (2) Skill care and diligence

2.       Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (6) Customers Interests

3.       Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (7) Communications with Clients

4.       Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (9) Customers: Relationships of Trust

5.       Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (11) Relationships with Regulators

6.       Breach of PRIN 2.1 - (12) Customer Duty

7.       Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 4.1:

4.1.1 - Providing inaccurate, unclear, and misleading information on many occasions Decisions were made on the back of clear information given by Barclays which they admit was unclear.

4.1.4A – Breach of ”Right to Offset”, did not explain the nature or extent of the firms Right to Offset. Applying this right, with no warning or intent on an account which had no credit balance and no overdraft in place. Provide no information and against FCA rules they did not provide 14 days notice  prior to actioning this right. Once exercised they failed to make the consumer aware and provided no information to the consumer.

8.       Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 5.1:

5.1.3 – Breach of compliance with obligations under 5.1.1R & Principle 6 Customers Interests by applying the right on the account taking it knowingly into an unauthorised overdraft. Failed to refund the payment despite disputing the debt and advising of financial hardship and stress. Did not justify their decision and ignored requests from consumers on alternative temp actions which would not affect their credit scores.

5.1.4 -Failed to pay any regard to consumers interest and treat us unfairly, this was after repeated emails raising concern about financial hardship, credit scoring damage, stress and blatant refusal to discuss the dispute relating to the debt being caused by Barclays.

5.1.11 – Barclays failed  to prove with any data, evidence or information that disputed transactions had been authorised by the consumer. Failed to refund the unauthorised payment to the consumer despite having no suspicion of fraud.

9.       Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 6.5:

6.5.2 – Barclays lay false claim that the consumers agreed to a promise to pay on the debt that was being disputed. Consumers were not aware of the credit plan which had been setup by Barclays until a notice letter arrived advising the plan had failed. As the consumers were unaware a credit plan was in place Barclays failed to provide notice to the consumer.

10.   Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 7.2:

7.2.1 – Failed to treat consumers in arrears in a fair and appropriate manner.

11.   Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 7.3

7.3.2 – Failed to treat consumers fairly and operate with our best interests when dealing with debt and arrears.

7.3.3 – On imposing a payment plan without consumers knowledge the plan failed on the date they set. Barclays failed to act inline with Principle 6 and gave no opportunity to request the consumer to make a payment on the account. The date they set the plan to end and subsequently failed saw them immediately report this to CRA as adverse.

7.3.4 – Barclays did not treat consumers in default and arrears with forbearance or consideration.

7.3.6 – Barclays failed to give consumers in default and areas any reasonable time to pay the debt. Having unlawfully applying the right to offset, they took payment from the account on 16 December. On 22 December Barclays unknowingly setup the payment plan, for which there was no letter sent to confirm any details and Barclays confirm that they cannot provide any evidence of the agreement for. The plan failed as per a letter of 24 January., At no pint between 16 December and 24 January were we contacted by Barclays in relation to the account, debt or payment plan. Mr Matthews the joint account holder who they hold jointly liable for the debt was completely unaware of the account balance and subsequent debt until the payment plan had failed. By which point Barclays had reported the account adverse and gave Mr Matthews no opportunity to pay off the debt before it impacted our credit.

7.3.7 – Barclays provided no information to consumers in arrears relating to free impartial debt advice or refer us to a not for profit debt advice body.

7.3.8 – Barclays contravene CONC 7.3.4 & Principle 6 by not providing an alternative to repay the debt and having not made Mr Matthews aware of the debt or arrears on the account until the account was reported as defaulted, they provided no opportunity for either Mr Matthews or a representative of his to resolve the account issue until it was reported adverse.

12.   Breach of BCOBS in their duty under 13.1

13.1.4– No true copy of the credit agreement was provided to the consumer in relation ta payment plan setup by Barclays.

13.1.6 – Failed to comply deem the agreement unenforceable and mislead consumers when they enforced the agreement.


13           Breach of DISP in their duty under 1.1

14           Breach of DISP in their duty under 1.4

15           Breach of DISP in their duty under 1.6

16           Breach of CONC in their duty under 1.1

17           Breach of CONC in their duty under 1.2

18           Breach of CONC in their duty under 1.3

19           Breach of CONC in their duty under 8.2

20           Breach of CONC in their duty under 8.4

21           Breach of CONC in their duty under 8.8

22           Breach of T&Cs under “Barclays and You” – personal customers

23           Breach of T&Cs under “Barclays Overdraft lending commitments”

24           Breach of FCA terms under “Unauthorised payments from your account”

25           Breach of Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77

26           Breach of statutory duty under the GDPR Act 2018.


Or also have the following written up


In December 2020 the FCA issues the defendant a Final Notice for a breach of the Authority’s Principles and the CONC sourcebook when they failed to show forbearance and due consideration to customers when they fell into arrear or financial difficulties. Customer contact, Customers circumstances and Forbearance are again a contributory factor in the level of service which has a life changing impact on the claimants which is all as a result of the defendant’s inability or desire to operate inside the Authority’s principles.

·         Investigations carried out by the defendant in relation to disputed transactions were confirms by the FOS as being inconsistent and display no evidence or rationale for decisions made. In breach of BCOBS 5.1.11 R guidance  the defendant failed to provide the claimant any proof that any of the circa 90 payments were authorised. They also failed to comply and refund the payments by the end of the working day.

·         BCOBS 5.1.10A R highlight the defendant having sufficient security in place relating to electronic payments. The nature of payments, the frequency and repeating amounts of payments should flag as potential fraud and speak to consumers to confirm payments. Payments in USD to countries such as Nigeria, Mexico, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Rwanda and more, sometimes up to 8 per day with repeated amount would be expected to raise concern and be looked into.

·         The claimant acted on advice the defendant provided, relating to a credit payment received into the current account. The advice was clear and specific, and the claimants’ actions were justified based on this. The defendant later confirms they failed to elaborate on the full details of the refund payment, these details had a significant bearing on the accuracy of the advice and the considerations.

·         The defendants soon after reneged on the advice when enforcing their right to set-off which was done unlawfully on the claimant’s current account with no credit balance. The claimant knowingly put claimant in financial hardship when breaching policy.

·         FCA guidance states the defendant should have notified the claimant at least 14 days prior to it carrying it out. They also failed in duty to inform the claimant quickly offset- off had been used on the account.

·         In breach of BCOBS & CONC sourcebook the defendant did not contact the claimants regarding the account.

·         The defendant setup a credit plan without the claimant’s knowledge and 30 days later the plan set to fail.

·         In the period the plan was in place the defendant made no attempt to contact claimants, in fact the defendants ignored all emails and calls as part of the complaint which was unusual behaviour.

·         After the credit plan failed, the claimants received a letter confirming this. This was the first-time claimants were aware of the plan. Claimants’ rationale for this action being to shift liability of the account debt from defendant to claimant.

·         No contact was attempted to claimants in this period to discuss the account before the defendant reported the adverse account to credit reference agencies without notice or reasonable time.

·         Following the defendant’s unlawful application of right to set-off it was 6 days later they then unlawfully setup a credit plan on the account. The plan failed on 24th of the month and the defendant reported the adverse actions by month end again without contacting the claimant or giving notice of reporting the account.

·         The defendants can display no evidence to show they gave the joint account holder any prior notice of the account going into an unauthorised overdraft. There is no evidence to show a credit plan was setup and the first and only correspondence on the credit plan was not until the plan failed and a letter sent.

·         The damage at this stage had been done as the adverse reports were made and so insufficient notice was given to both account holders on the debt.

·         CONC 7.3.2 G firms should pay due regard to Principle 6 when dealing with customers in default or arrears, the defendant failed in its duty.

·         CONC 7.3.4 R state firms should treat customers in default or arrears with forbearance and due consideration, which again the defendant failed to comply with and under.

·         CONC 7.3.6 G states a firm must allow a customer reasonable time and opportunity to pay a debt when in arrears or default, the defendant again failed to do this.

·         CONC 7.3.14 R states a firm must not take disproportionate action against a customer in default or arrears, the defendant did this by firstly unlawfully causing the debt for the claimants and the reporting the account as adverse and impacting them negatively.

·         CONC 7.5.3 R says a firm must not ignore or disregard a customer that disputes a debt and must provide clear justification and evidence of why their claim is not valid. The defendant ignored all requests and comments in relation to the debt with no rationale.

·         CONC 7.13.2 R and 7.13.3R state the firm must hold adequate and accurate information in respect of debts and must ensure information it discloses to a credit reference agency is accurate and adequate.

·         CONC 7.14.1 R states should a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds the firm must suspend any steps it takes in recovery of the debt. The defendant ignored the claimants dispute of the debt and proceeded to apply right of set-off unlawfully. After the debit was taken, the claimant repeatedly raised concerns and the defendant refused our reasonable requests.

·         CONC 7.14.3 R and 7.14.5 R states the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt in a timely manner and also provide information on the outcome of the investigation the customer disputed. No evidence that this was considered by the defendant.

·         CONC 7.14.14 R is what the claimant believes is the rationale behind the defendant creating the credit plan for the claimants without their knowledge. It states if the customers offer to settle the debt is accepted by the firm, it must be communicated formally and unequivocally that the relevant payment  has been accepted as settlement of customers liability. The claimants maintain no offer of settlement of the debt was ever considered and there is no evidence to suggest that occurred and neither any documents from the defendant to confirm any offer was made.

·         Claimants have requested a copy of the credit plan that they state was agreed to resolve the account debt. The defendant confirms no evidence is available due to it being done on their mobile app. Under the CONC & CCA 1974 a copy of the agreement must be made available as soon as possible and provide details of the agreement.

·         Under CONC 13.1.4 G and CCA  1974 a copy of the credit plan should be provided to the consumer and contain the date, the amount, any conditions, and a breakdown of instalments agreed. One member of staff (evidenced in a recorded call) quotes figures of questionable. A second staff member of staff was unable to provide any information relating to the plan in contrast to information previously provided. CONC 13.1.6 G (1) and the CCA 1974 section 77B (8) state that failure to comply with provisions imposed render the agreement unenforceable.

·         The defendant the went on to report the account as adverse, without notifying 14 days prior, its intentions to the claimant. As the credit plan is unenforceable the defendant has reported inaccurate data to CRA relating to the claimant’s account.

·         Under CONC 8.2 .2 G, 8.2.3 G, 8.2.5 R, 8.4.4 G and Authority principles, the defendant fails to protect the claimants’ interests and act with due skill care and diligence relating to consumer debts. CONC 8.8.1 R state firms must ensure they maintain contact and regularly review the financial position and circumstances of the consumer, the defendant breached this totally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...