Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just a little something for consideration When a card is compromised, the replacements can be set up to automatically allow or manually re-add, old recurring transactions. The card issuer may ask you to confirm legitimate transactions which they would effectively 'migrate' to the new card Some do - some don't. Some staff on some cards seem to be entirely unaware/uncaring about this. Some card issuers expect you to sort it all out manually.   BUT if the leak is an ongoing lyca leakas it seems - as soon as you or your CC supplier give it to lyca/the leak source - compromised again     A note on security DONT use the same email or phone number for your banking as you do for sims etc. Although a bank eg santander leak would compromise this Infp seems to suggest that single/compromised multi factor authentication customers are priority targets, with more robustly secure cards being hit by 0.00 tests first Consider that the email address is one of the OTP recieving options AND one of the OTP security checks prior to sending the OTP - with the phone number being another So if they've got your card and email (same email for banking and end contact) - and you aren't forcing a phone OTP - you are compromised.  
    • Thanks for posting up the back of the NTK. The good news s that as it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act, it means that you are not liable for the charge as the keeper as I explained in a previous post.  The PC fails for two reasons. The first is that it does not specify the period of parking. All it does is list the arrival and departure times of your car. Obviously that does not include the time taken to drive to the car parking space, manoeuvre the car into the space and later drive from the space to the exit. Nor does their times include things like getting kids disabled people out of and into the car as well as things like returning the trolley whilst still being parked. All of which can add a fair bit of time to the parking period which can then be subtracted from their ANPR times and makes your actual parking time a lot shorter than 118 minutes they seem to think it is. The second reason is that they failed to ask the keeper to pay Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][e]  (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges You as keeper are now in the clear which is a good reason for you to contact Sainsbury  stating that you are being pursued as the keeper when you are not liable under the Act as well as the oher things I suggested in my previous post. If you don't get it cancelled with Sainsbury this could drag on for months with endless letters unlawfully pushing the price up to scare you into paying.  
    • Brilliant! That's great to hear and honestly pleased I'm wrong, my advice was out of concern. I checked some of your previous posts last night and you've been giving great advice to others at times. Bringing a claim can be serious (counter-claims etc) and it didn't appear you were knowledgeable based on posts so far. Far from an expert myself, just interested and will try to help. I'll sit on the sidelines, best of luck with the claim!
    • Thank you so much for the advice  I will try and up my savings to £500 for the next 6 months. Although I do still have an uphill battle, I feel more able to deal with it.  I hope my experience with the cifas marker helps someone else who finds themselves in that quite horrible situation. It is a huge weight off my shoulders getting it removed.
  • 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

Cl Finance & Ge Money


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6197 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

Despite being on a CCCS Debt Management Programme CF Finance has issued a county court claim for £700 odd they allege they have bought from GE Money. I've never had one of these before, so any suggestions on how to be as difficult as possible would be appreciated. vandermerwe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Defend the claim by telling the court you are already paying the debt to the original creditor through a debt management plan, and you do not recognise CF Finance's right to collect this debt. The DMP has been arranged on a pro-rata basis so that your payments are being fairly distributed to all your creditors. You can illustrate this through the income and expenditure section and attach further details on a separate sheet if necessary (If that's still allowed). Make sure you point out the payments are made through an authorised third party, CCCS.

 

Respectfully 'suggest' to the judge that should any judgment be made, it should be in keeping with your current payment level, as you suspect CF Finance have issued this claim with the intention of securing unfair advantage over your other creditors, and they have yet to provide any evidence they legally own the debt, and not your original creditor.

 

I think you'll find the claim will either be struck out, or you'll get a judgment ordering you to pay at the same rate.

 

Have you already done a CCA request?? Someone else more savvy with CCA's will help you with that.

 

All the best.

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this a stamped court claim or just one of the imitation ones s DCA's sent to frighten people?

 

if it is not stamped then its fake.

i'd start with a CCA request & £1 fee to the DCA

 

dx100uk

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

is this a stamped court claim or just one of the imitation ones s DCA's sent to frighten people?

 

if it is not stamped then its fake.

i'd start with a CCA request & £1 fee to the DCA

 

dx100uk

 

 

Yes good point. I forgot that old trick......:rolleyes:

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dannyboy 660 and dx100uk. Firstly it's CL Finance and not CF. I know a visit to an optician is overdue! Secondly I am sure the claim form is genuine as it gives a password to link with http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk where the claim shows up. The Claimant is CL Finance but they give a solicitor's name (Howard Cohen) for all documents and payments. The claim is in respect of a store card (Russell & Bromley) and as recently as mid-May I was dealing with GE Money and their own company Viking Collection Services giving details of the CCCS debt management programme and the budget prepared by them. It appears they have been offered £5.00 per month by the CCCS with the first payment due to be paid to them any day now (I have already paid the CCCS). I have also paid £1.00 token payments monthly in the interim. I've got a copy of the original agreement - is it worth asking the Claimant for a copy? CCCS advise returning the documents, completed, to Cohen (by recorded mail) together with a copy of the budget they have prepared for a joint DMP with my wife. Although I deal with all paperwork she is the Defendant in the matter and suppose she must sign despite trying to recover from a mental breakdown. Dannyboy660 - is it worth sending your suggested letter to Cohen? The CCCS say do NOT acknowledge service to the court. Any further suggestions would be gratefully received as I have never had to deal with debt collectors before. I supposed GE are a bit miffed at being fined £600,000 by the FSA, having to face up to £10 million in refunds for mis-selling payment protection insurance and then losing the Harrods store card account. Vandermerwe

Link to post
Share on other sites

"CCCS advise returning the documents, completed, to Cohen (by recorded mail) together with a copy of the budget they have prepared for a joint DMP with my wife. Although I deal with all paperwork she is the Defendant in the matter and suppose she must sign despite trying to recover from a mental breakdown. Dannyboy660 - is it worth sending your suggested letter to Cohen? The CCCS say do NOT acknowledge service to the court."

 

 

Not acknowledging service to the court sounds like a bit of a dangerous tactic to me. If the claimant can prove your residential address and the claim shows on MCOL, then it may be possible to get judgment by default if they choose to ignore your reply, or it mysteriously gets lost. Strange things do happen when you deal with DCA’s - but if that’s the advice CCCS have given you then there must be a reason for it, although it certainly doesn’t make sense to me.

 

If you acknowledge through the proper channel, but offer defence as stated in my earlier post you have the opportunity to challenge ownership, request CCA through the court, and if it goes the same way as the myriad of other CCA requests on this forum, you have an opportunity to kill it stone dead with the protection of the Civil Court.

 

Whose side are CCCS on??

 

I’m sorry I really don’t know what to say. I don’t want to offer you advice which will almost certainly lead to confrontation with the DCA, so perhaps you should play it safe and follow CCCS advice, unless someone else here on CAG could offer an alternative???

 

 

Arrow Financial | Consumer Credit Counseling Services (CCCS)

 

Just so you are aware.....

 

All the best.

  • Haha 1

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dannyboy660. I've now had some paperwork from the CCCS and also carefully studied the moneyclaim.gov site. I can now understand (or think I do) why the CCCS advised the way they did - the Acknowledgment of Service implies either a defence or contest of jurisdiction. As the amount claimed is what is owed, and I have correspondence with GE about this amount, there is no defence and it would appear that CL Finance are allowed to reclaim the court fee of £70 and Howard Cohen's bung of another £70. The acid test is that any defence (according to the CCCS) will mean a hearing will be set for my local court and I must attend the hearing. Although I am using the first person in this note to you, the defendant is my wife and is regrettably unfit to appear in court for medical reasons and we can't afford a solicitor. I think the CCCS is pretty good. They are obviously overwhelmed by debtors seeking help and yet remain helpful and courteous. They have completed our debt management plan's creditor summary as at June 12 and already show £5.00 per month to be paid to CL Finance. They tell me to send this and our budget prepared on April 25 securely attached to the claim form using recorded delivery. Presumably CL will get judgment but not interest. If they bitch about the £5.00 which - given their apparent reputation I have no doubt they will - then I shall apply to the court for a redetermination. Obviously the content of your post #2 gives me ammunition. Just for your info. I'm not a professional dodger of debt - the DMP only consists of finance companies and no private creditors - but a successful business I ran overseas for 30 years just didn't take off here. Finally, the CCCS must be a thorn in the side of Arrow Financial and their ilk and I've brought that particular libel to their attention. Sorry for all the waffle and can only thank you once again for your interest and help. Regards, Vandermerwe.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the circumstances, I guess it might be better for you if you just follow the guidance of CCCS. It will avoid any serious confrontation and trips to court, but you will probably end up with a CCJ if they get judgment by default. At least that puts an end to any harassment for more money or a higher payment rate (hopefully).

 

It hadn't occured to me that CCCS might not be aware of Arrow Financial's little game, but it proves beyond doubt that the DCA's will now stoop so low as to target people on DMP's, already paying. It's just a case of taking it over from the OC, and making a small fortune on a debt that can be charged off anyway!!

 

Best wishes to you and your wife.

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dannyboy660 - your good wishes are greatly appreciated. Documentation duly sent off and now the anticipated second one has arrived this time for dearly beloved's Harrods' card which she had held for 20 odd years and had been elevated to Gold Status. She's actually not too upset about this as Harrods' Egyptian proprietor had ditched the store card and got rid of GE Money/Capital Bank who had been administering it at an eye watering rate of interest. That must have hurt GE and made them even more bitter and twisted. Wish they'd stick to making jet turbines. That should be it for now - thanks again for your support. Vandermerwe

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...