Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
    • If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.
    • Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why?  Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.
    • Hungary is attempting to be a world power in manufacturing electric vehicle batteries, despite locals' reservations.View the full article
    • You can't, but you can (and really should) bring up the point that the lender isn't meeting their legal obligations in selling the property for fair market value. You'll have to do this in court, though.     A receiver is bought in by the lender, not you. If they're a registered insolvency practitioner, you may be able to raise a complaint to the insolvency service but there are no guarantees here. Many receivers are also registered with the RICS and self-regulate so if you know the name of the receiver you can check there, again no guarantees.   https://www.rics.org/surveyor-careers/career-development/accreditations/registered-property-receivership-scheme
  • 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

wife v Littlewoods PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5450 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

FOS should have received copy of Littlewoods letter, this concludes our investigations. IE sod off contact FOS.

 

Going by threads I have read with similar problems I do not expect much assistance from FOS but this will at least show the court I have exhausted all avenues prior to going to court.

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi all I think you may find this interesting, as you may be aware Littlewoods entered two defaults one by Littlewoods Finance Ltd the other by Legal Direct Recs

 

I wrote to Littlewoods last year regarding these two defaults no result not even a reply. Got FOS involved and had the usual letter from Littlewoods we a right you are wrong this is our final communication garbage take to FOS within 6 months etc.

 

So I sent copy of that Letter together with another copy of my wifes credit reference file from Experian. That was only last week. Today I have checked my wifes CRA file with Experian and guess what the following defaulted entry has disappeared all together.

 

one on 08/10/2007 by

Legal Direct Recs

Credit Control Manager

Littlewoods Finance Company

Aintree Innovation Centre

Park Lane

Bootle

L30 1SL

 

 

Not just adjusted to "0" gone all together.Though I have not had any letter from Experian or Littlewoods about this so I would say from this that a company cannot put two defaults on your CRA files for the same debt.

 

It maybe of course that they have removed one default hoping that I will go away. No chance good job I kept a printout of the CRA file from 1 Feb 2008 with both defaults on it.

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

Have just been reading your thread. Well done for continuing the fight. I am also after PPI from Littlewoods as well as arrears charges. Mine is early days yet so I have learnt alot from this. Thanks for keeping it well updated

 

Regards

olives

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now received letter from FOS to say complaint passed to casework support team for allocation to an adjudicator.

 

Have e-mailed FOS informing them that after Littlewoods received information from FOS that I had made a complaint they have removed the default record applied to CRA files by Legal Direct Recs. Removed in full not just amended.

 

If I don't get the response I want from FOS it gives me more ammunition for a court case if required.

 

will post again when I have something to post

 

dpick:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

We have had a small development, Friday we had a letter from FOS my case has been assigned to an adjudicator and they will get in contact by week end 29 August 2008. Then today I have received a call from the adjudicator, just a courtesy call to me to introduce himself. Interesting part while having a quick discussion of my complaint he said that Littlewoods had admitted there was a clerical error (again and two months apart) that had resulted in a second default being applied to the same account with Littlewoods. I wonder was this the same error that resulted in them sending the account to two different DCA after saying they would not pursue the debt. I have now seen this same excuse of a clerical error on at lease 5 threads to do with Littlewoods and defaults or DCA's after they had written to customer to say they would not pursue the debt. I wonder when OFT, FOS and TS will do something about this excuse and no I will not hold my breath.

 

dpicksmile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a full and final settlement of the issue but FOS have written to Littlewoods with this offer to settle my complaint. Please note this is within the FOS mediation of my complaint with Littlewoods.

 

Letter dated 10 July 2008 from FOS

 

Below are paragraphs 4 and 5 of letter

 

In it's correspondence to this service - letter dated 4 June 2008, the business has advised that two DN were registered incorrectly and subsequently it has arranged for one of these to be removed. It has also advised that it is no longer pursuing Mrs dpick for the alleged debt, because it is unable to produce a copy of the signed credit agreement.

 

Because the business has confirmed it is no longer pursuing the complaint for the alleged debt I would ask it to consider removing the remaining DN on her credit file. Also in recognition of it incorrectly registering the other DN I would ask the business to make a payment of £50 in respect of any unnecessary distress and inconvenience caused.

 

I would like to again point out that this is not binding on Littlewoods but I would be happy with this result, that would leave my wife's CRA files clear.

 

 

Will now have to wait for Littlewoods response to FOS

 

 

dpick:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Bugger Have had letters from FOS and Littlewoods. Littlewoods refuse to remove the default and FOS say that while they have recommended that Littlewoods remove the default they do not have the authority to force them to remove it.

 

This default is applied to an account that has no signed agreement under CCA 1974.

The value on the default contains charges, PPI and interest that we had started to reclaim when Littlewoods admitted they cannot find any agreement and that they would not pursue the debt further.

 

Your thoughts on if I would be able to have this default removed by court action, my own thought at this time is to go after them.

 

dpick:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya,

 

I have just sent littlewoods an LBA(letter before action) for the charges they have on my account. The charges amount to more than what is owed. They are saying that I cant go to the FOS as they were not with them at the time I opened the account. The FOS have confirmed this.

 

Looks like court is my only way. I will let you know how I get on so maybe you can go down that route. These guys are really tricky

 

Good luck

olives xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I do not know what is going on with Littlewoods just received the letter from them refusing to abide with FOS adjudication but checked my wife's experian file and the default has gone marked as satisfied and balance "0" all payment history is all zero's as well. Now have no defaults on my wifes CRA files.

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey thats good news.

wonder if it is catching!

 

i also wonder if you will get a cheque in the post for the remiaing charges back, as you said before the outstanding bal was less than the charges?? too much to hope for i bet!!!

 

well done again

 

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

  • 8 months later...

VICTORIES TO DATE THROUGH THE HELP OF THIS SITE:

 

1. Littlewoods Catalouge - No pursual of debt & wrote off £4500

2. Three mobile - Debt written off in full, all adverse entries including default removed from credit files, even got an apology from the Chairmans office

3. HSBC Bank - Partial refund for bank charges & claim lodged at court for outstanding charges.

4. HFC Bank - Ongoing - SAR'd in may- Going to register at court for non compliance.

5. Barclaycard - Being very awkward but Ongoing - These are a tricky bunch but they will fold before I do.

 

GOD BLESS CONSUMER ACTION GROUP!

Link to post
Share on other sites

VICTORIES TO DATE THROUGH THE HELP OF THIS SITE:

 

1. Littlewoods Catalouge - No pursual of debt & wrote off £4500

2. Three mobile - Debt written off in full, all adverse entries including default removed from credit files, even got an apology from the Chairmans office

3. HSBC Bank - Partial refund for bank charges & claim lodged at court for outstanding charges.

4. HFC Bank - Ongoing - SAR'd in may- Going to register at court for non compliance.

5. Barclaycard - Being very awkward but Ongoing - These are a tricky bunch but they will fold before I do.

 

GOD BLESS CONSUMER ACTION GROUP!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...