Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • DN is ok DCA NOA is ok, though not one from Newday saying they've sold it. agreement states esigned on a sunday at 11am?? really??  but no typed names or tick box nor any IP address used. if the date is correct then poss ok, it that your correct address for that time of take out? but if not, then that could simply be a copy of someone elses they've used with you details copy'n'pasted over theirs. the agreement details separate T&C's in at least 8.4. a full set of T&C containing your correct address for the time MUST be included. failure renders the agreement unenforceable... have you the T&C's too? dx
    • Npower and Scottish Power and others have always had regulations that require them to treat customers fairly - the threads here and my experiences demonstrate that those regs are little more than useless.   Even Octopus recently spent month after month saying they needed to increase my monthly payments despite my credit balance slowly going up TWICE I had to reset it online back to prior payment as they unilaterally increased it unilaterally. Raised formal complaint and they than said i was paying too much and reduced the payment, again without my agreement, although that time at least they told me they were doing it.   .. and Octopus has been one of the better ones.    
    • Thank you. You left all your personal details showing on the invoice, but I've removed them. From Googling it seems the free parking is limited to one hour.  You stayed two.  There is no point appealing, you did overstay.  That's apart from the fact the private parking companies are just interested in £££££ and never accept appeals. We have other Iceland cases, Iceland as a company refuse to have these invoices cancelled. So it's up to you. Pay £51 and the matter goes away. Or refuse to pay.  Horizon very rarely do court.  We would support you all the way. 
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

incipience vs The Abbey


incipience
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5553 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

Having recently cleared all the moneys owing to Abbey Bank including all fees levied. I decided that it would be time to claim back the charges.

 

7 days after sending the letter to Abbey, I was very surprised to get an alert from my 24/7 monitored credit file. Abbey had registered a fresh default to 2 credit reference agencies that didnt even hold details of my account. Whats more, they are still showing the balance that I paid a month before as outstanding.

 

I contacted the CRA's and disputed the default and the outstanding balance issues. The response from the CRAs was that of "Abbey, have stated that the account status and balance are correct" I then contacted Abbey DMO and asked for my balance, which of course they told me that the account was cleared.

 

Even the fact that I submitted evidence to the CRAs that the account was cleared, they have refused to remove the incorrect and prejudicial information.

 

Has anyone experienced similar?

 

What options do I now have to get this corrected?

 

Frankly I am disgraced at the lengths a company will go to in order to punish people for fair repayment of levied fees.

Support the Cause and Fight Firstplus Google "First Plus Complaints"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kev.. yeah I get that, however Abbey are claiming that the details are true. Therefore the question is surely with the evidence to hand someone must be able to force Abbey to remove the data.

Support the Cause and Fight Firstplus Google "First Plus Complaints"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same problem. Contact Julie Edwards at Abbey on 01908 680135 - I did and she asked for proof that the account was paid. They seem to get a little shaken when I told them I was contact the FSA and the ICO. They also claimed that the information I sent recorded delivery to The Debt Management Department wasn't received even though I had the recorded receipt to tell me otherwise. They are very slimy and try to worm their way out of it, but I would also threaten legal action as they have filed false information about you, which I believe is in some ways fraudulent information.

 

Can anyone verify that?

Abbey - £539 pending - !!!WON!!!

Halifax - £676 pending - stayed at court

2nd Claim with Halifax - £168 pending

Lloyds TSB - £780 (sisters) !!!WON!!! - Filed waste of costs order (on hold)

Barclays - Barclays filed crap defense - on hold

 

AND THE BANKS ARE STILL CHARGING!!!!!!!

 

How very dare you!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The Fight Continues.. Just waiting for a result on the Bank Charges Case, before making my next move.

 

Also the Julie Edwards Number has changed to 01908 349822

Edited by incipience

Support the Cause and Fight Firstplus Google "First Plus Complaints"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...