Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • fkofilee
      Can I get a Cifas marker removed?

      By fkofilee · Posted

      If it is MCB    National Fraud Database Members | Preventing Fraud Losses | Cifas WWW.CIFAS.ORG.UK A range of organisations use the National Fraud Database to share data on confirmed fraud cases, preventing over £1 billion in fraud losses every year.   They are on the register  
    • fkofilee
      Can I get a Cifas marker removed?

      By fkofilee · Posted

      Hi @LilMissM   I guess you could call me our resident CIFAS Specialist - Personally have been through all of what you have and now have come out the other side when my marker fell off in May 2023. For a start Monzo may close your account but as I had a Marker for App Fraud (Vodafone ended up making a whole hoohah of the account I had with them) - I was with them and still am from Oct 2017 till today. And not once did they close my account. I actually spoke to a couple of current account providers at the time that I had accounts with - Nationwide and Barclays - Told them what was going on and provided all the evidence to them. They advised they may do so but it was highly unlikely now that they understood why it happened and what I was doing to fight it.    Anyway - On to your marker. MCB is My Community Bank?  I can say to you that on experience that On Monday you can be on top of the world then on Tuesday you whole life changes in a flash of an eye. Suddenly you cant pay your bills, Work isnt feasible and you are left with no other choice but to scrape by.  If this has happened to you, then join the club.  - Why is this important? Well Financial institutions get one whiff of potential fraud and you are guilty without a chance to respond. You found out the hard way   If it sounds like I'm waffling, I'm not - Its important to your issue. They have deemed you guilty by the fact that no payments have been made and potentially entered into a loan agreement knowing looking not to pay (Although thats how it may appear, there will always be factors against that)    First off - Questions - What Category of Marker do you have? If unsure, check my signature for a Credit File Guide which will tell you all you need to know about what Categories apply.  - When did you raise the complaint? They will have 8 weeks to respond. More on this in a mo.  - Do you have Correspondence / Audit Trails of communications showing that you were in severe financial strain due to an event AFTER you took the loan?   My next suggestions, Send this complaint to the CEOs office - CEOEMAIL.COM Let them make the decision as per the Complaint Procedure. Then if they refuse to remove the marker. take it to the FOS who can force the company to remove it if found in favour.  Some companies do need a slap or 2 once in a while to bring them down a peg. You could be looking at this right now.   
    • AndyOrch
      Appeal Bundles - Civil Appeals - Parcel Delivery Firms

      By AndyOrch · Posted

      Other case law relied upon " On other record of reasons "
    • BankFodder
      Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued

      By BankFodder · Posted

      Page 2 – document 10 and 11 – you should include the fact that it is a Law reform commission report. Best to give it its full name if you can I suggest that you move paragraph 10 up to the first position – paragraph 5 and move everything down. I think other than that – it is good to go. I suggest you don't bother to do any more drafts. Simply rearrange the paragraphs as I suggested above then the title of the documents that you are relying on in the index page. Send it off and post your final version here so that everybody can see. I'm sorry about the delay. Thanks for reminding me
    • LilMissM
      Can I get a Cifas marker removed?

      By LilMissM · Posted

      I have recently found myself in financial difficulties and with the help of forum members in another thread regarding this, I think I can get myself sorted. My query here is how to deal with a Cifas marker that has been logged against me by one of my creditors for "evasion of payment". Admittedly yes I did get a £5000 loan with them and have not paid any payment but at the start of the year, which is when the loan landed, I realised I was going to be struggling to repay that and other debts and I contacted MCB to ask if there was any way I could extend the loan from 24 months to 36 months. I explained my situation and that I was going with a DMP and asked them if they could help me with this. They did not reply. I then emailed them again a month later explaining that my DMP was going ahead and could they confirm that the direct debit was indeed cancelled. Again, they did not reply. The DMP fell apart and so did everything else thereafter. My bank withdrew my overdraft and said I could not stay with them (I thought initially that it was because of the DMP) so I opened another account (Starling) and set up all my direct debits etc with the new bank. A month into being with the new bank, they contacted me and said they were closing my account in three months. So I started applying for other basic accounts and every single one of them either refused or revoked.  Through the help in the other thread, I requested a SAR from Cifas and discovered that I have this marker against my name for "evasion of payment". I have logged a complaint with MCB on the advice of other forum members, but my query really is do you think the marker is fair given that I did ask them for help and I did explain that I was going to be struggling financially to repay the loan over the original two years, and is there any way that I can get it removed? I fully admit that I have yet to make a payment to them and I suppose in my naivety and panic I thought if I emailed them early on they could extend the loan and help me out, but they didn't even reply  I did manage to open an account with Monzo before the marker was in place, but I am very concerned that if Monzo do what Starling did, I will have no bank account to pay my bills or get my wages paid into.  Realistically based on the information I have given here, what do you think my chances are of getting this marker removed? Any help/advice on this would be greatly appreciated x

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Urgent Info Needed To Confirm A Bank Leak

finlander

By finlander
in General

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6070 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

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

mailmannz

mailmannz

Posted
Posted

IF and I repeat IF this is true...(misinformation is rife) we have won!!!!!!!:eek: :):D

 

 

IF we have won...it will only be a short term thing while banks come up with other, more ingenious ways of getting money out of us!

 

Mailman

Link to post
Share on other sites
alecmac18

alecmac18

Posted
Posted

The more I think about this - the more I think its an excellent idea of Lloyds. They can draw a line under the issue, get LOADS of new customers and be seen to be the 'better' bank. The 3.5 billion they may have to pay out can be seen as a kind of advertising budget - and they would have had to pay it eventually anyway. I may well switch over to lloyds if this is true.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
alecmac18

alecmac18

Posted
Posted

Again - the more you think about it......it could be true....does any bank really want its dirty laundry dragged through the court by the OFT. The would have to disclose internal notes, costings (e.g how much it actually costs the bank to process the charges - very embarressing if the real cost is something like £1 haha) - The question really is - do they want this info plastered over the evening news - constantly - for a month - with their logo clearly visable behind a newsreader - with the caption "OFT finds that charges only cost £1 to process"

 

I think if I ran Lloyds - faced with that senario - I would digg deep - put aside the 3.5 billion - call the PR team and ad agency and sit back while I incur the wrath of the other banks for breaking ranks.

 

Go Lloyds...

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
crfx250

crfx250

Posted
Posted

I very much doubt this rumour is true.

 

The OFT and the banks have a signed agreement for the test case and I

don't know if it would be legally possible for Lloyds to simply pull out. Also

I doubt if any bank would have the nerve to break rank.

 

I just called a contact at the OFT and he knows nothing about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
alecmac18

alecmac18

Posted
Posted

Yeah but they could pull out of the test case - break ranks - and then just start paying customers back. Its legally possible if they simply admit guilt.

 

At this point the OFT would not necessarily have been informed.

 

But - OK - its pretty unlikely - sigh

 

But still.......there is a compelling argument for doing it......

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
alecmac18

alecmac18

Posted
Posted

Another reason for just pulling out of the test case, breaking ranks, and paying out. The banks have ALL been flooded with people applying for refunds claiming hardship. These claims are apparently more difficult to process than normal as they can be much more complex -and require senior managers.

 

They are being sent in in the 1000's.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tifo

tifo

Posted
Posted
The banks have ALL been flooded with people applying for refunds claiming hardship.

 

Yes, and sometimes they have to pay out, especially with benefits.

 

But, talking to the FOS today, i was told hardship is only assessed as 'current' and not years ago. So if you are claiming charges from benefits from a few years ago, that does not count. If you are claiming charges from benefits within the last few months, that needs looking at as it is 'current' hardship.

 

The guy made it clear that hardship cannot be used to help you pay your debts, e.g. mortgage arrears, bill arrears etc. despite me asking why the FSA say this is so.

 

He said they assess the banking code just as the bank does. I guess some crap was mentioned here ....

 

But, i had Lloyds pay out £817 to my partner this week, without any statements or a schedule sent as i asked 'send me what you charged' and by asking for hardship to be considered after they sent a 'stay' letter. Maybe cos they're thinking of pulling out of the case soon?

Link to post
Share on other sites
alecmac18

alecmac18

Posted
Posted

The FOS does not know what its talking about. Fair enough - a lot of the hardship claims all use different arguments - but a good argument can be made that a persons current financial position can have been impacted as a result of cumulative charges over the years (e.g bank charges make you increase overdraft - bank increase overdraft to let you handle the charges- charges keep coming in - you default on OD - bank gives you loan to clear overdraft - cycle repeats until customer is insolvent.)

 

I have spoken to FOS on numerous occasions - you actually get better advice by speaking to the banks - FOS are terrible at giving advice and keep changing their minds. You are (sadly) much better going to court and arguing your case. If anything the FOS are even more in the pocket of banks than the FSA.

 

The FOS could have continued to process bank charge claims. They CHOSE not to. In fact it is a condition of the FSA wavier that the FOS STOPS processing complaints. Had the FOS refused then the FSA would have been unable to put the wavier in place. No one ordered them to do anything. Yes the OFT is taking banks to court. But there are many, many other issues that the FOS could have looked at to determine whether the charges were fair other than The Unfair Terms and Contracts Act. The conduct of the FOS is shocking really.......and should also be investigated in due course.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
alecmac18

alecmac18

Posted
Posted

This is basically why I think this story might have a ring of truth to it...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/113285-banks-oft-rock-hard.html

 

It really no longer matters if the banks 'win' in court. Dragging the appeal out helps no one either. The bottom line is that public opinion has already ruled that charges are unfair. And in a retail market that is all that matters.

 

Legal opinion is now neither here nor there.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
finlander

finlander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

tifo vbmenu_register("postmenu_1116533", true); - why can't they back out...if they simply say 'we have spoken to our legal chaps and we agree with the oft' then what would the court case be about? Tom Brennan found out what the judges think about taking someone to court who has given in to virtually all your demands except for a few legally tenuous points! what would the oft gain by pushing it? The other banks would surely follow and the oft would risk a chance they may lose and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the consumer.

 

I don't know if this is true or if the timescale is accurate. What I do know is the more I think about it the better sense it would make for LLoyds. They are one of the richest banks. They can if anyone afford it. The publicity would be good, they may gain customers and they could re-employ there staff from dealing with our complaints to selling to us. If their lawyers have said 'you can't win' then why not give in and be seen to be genorous and honest instead of dragged kicking and screaming into a court?

 

up to now lloyds seem to have been the most independant bank. They didn't rely on the penalty charge reflects our cost defence. They went for service charge and on several occassions won. The other banks were quoting them. They seem to have a legal team who know how to confuse. imagine them now agreeing to refund the money when everyone knows they won against Mr Berwick. they would look generous! how clever would that be?

 

As I said I'm not holding my breath but I really really wont be surprised if this happens in the near future....;)

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
finlander

finlander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

they can say 'you win - we agree with you'.

 

so what would the OFT do then?:confused:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
finlander

finlander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

and when we say 'we are taking you to court'

 

they do say 'no thanks' and pay us...

 

this is just bigger...whats more the banks asked for the case and weren't dragged there by the oft... Which would make the OFT look wasteful if they pursued a bank who had just said 'ok you win we agree with you!'

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
finlander

finlander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

i'ts a civil matter not a criminal one...how can you drag someone to court who has decided to agree with you?.. what would you say to the judge?

 

'we want these people who now agree with us to still agree with us?'

 

 

:confused:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
TANZARELLI

TANZARELLI

Posted
Posted
I very much doubt this rumour is true.

 

The OFT and the banks have a signed agreement for the test case and I

don't know if it would be legally possible for Lloyds to simply pull out. Also

I doubt if any bank would have the nerve to break rank.

 

I just called a contact at the OFT and he knows nothing about it.

 

I don't personally think this is true but if it were why would your contact at the OFT know anything about it anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...