Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • Appreciate your swift input and amendments! I've reworded some of it (and will likely reformat the page a bit before printing to make it neater) but I've included the majority of your suggestions. Let me know what you think. Would you recommend I email this to the individual who declined the compensation as well as sending it by post? Cheers Switch2 - Letter of Claim v3.pdf
    • I suggest (change in red) -   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [car reg no]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6. The Claimant is claiming an unlawful amount of interest.  The dispute between the parties concerns a disputed, unpaid invoice, issued on 6 January 2025, on which it is written "Payment to be made by 06-Feb-2025".  Yet the Claimant is claiming interest from 4 January 2025.  7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Okay. That sounds a lot better. Hopefully you now realise that the third party rights act only applies if you have used a parcel broker but you are trying to sue the courier company directly. So because you contracted directly with the courier, you are going to sue them directly. By using insurance or prohibited items or non-compensation lists, they are seeking to exclude or limit liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care – and of course this is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act and in fact the insurance that they pressurise you to purchase amounts to a secondary contract under section 72 of the Act because it is a prohibited secondary contract which is attempting also to limit or exclude liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care. The prohibited items list is an unfair term as you have already pointed out. Even more significantly here not only are they saying that it is prohibited – but they are saying this despite the fact that they were very happy to take your money in respect of insurance. These people are stupid and dishonest. But also now they will abuse the County Court system by making you jump through the hoops because it costs them scarcely anything at all to use up the County Court system because it is a publicly funded taxpayer resourced system of justice. They don't use this to obtain justice. They use this simply as a means of debt avoidance to try and frustrate their customers legitimate claims.   Okay I've made a few amendments – and also I've added a further head of damage for unfair trading which could give you a next your little bit of money and also an extra little bit of leverage. Please have a look. See if you are happy with it. If you want to take anything away. If you want to add anything. If there is anything which is incorrect – and post up the final draft here please for a last look.
    • Nope, not yet filed, have it in draft but was going to leave it a little while until nearer the deadline 🙂
  • 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
      • 162 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
        • Thanks
        • Like

Recommended Posts

Whilst in the process of getting a few default removals removed, Browsing the forums i think i found something that might work.

 

First the facts

 

The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) state 14 days should be provided (THANKS PT2537)

 

CRA's state data is updated after 28 + 48-72 hours if it requires formatting (source experian)

 

My default recieved (setteled)

Default notice dated: 24/07/2008

Default notice deadline: 10/08/2008

Default registered: 05/09/2009

 

Which means i got my default after 26 days, The way it looks to me is they sent the instruction 2 days earlier (MIN) breaching CCA (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561)

 

Most financial institutions update after 28 days, some after 14 and if this was the case the registration date would be half give or take a few days. Anything less than 14 days applies mainly to information that is in the public domain (CCJ, IVA, Bankruptcy & CIFAS etc) Can we request information such as when was the default sent to the CRA's?

 

What do you think? Can we make something out of this or is it not worth pursuing?????

Edited by liquidauctions

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This sounds very ineteresting.

 

link3.gifCRA's state data is updated after 28 + 48-72 hours if it requires formatting (source experian)

 

 

 

What do you mean by 28+48-72 hours.....can you explain the units you are using - do you mean days?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the CRAs will just ignore that anyway and tell you to take it up with the creditors as the "data owners"

Advice and comments posted by The Debt Star reflect only my personal opinion and it is up to you alone to decide what action you should take. You should always seek independent legal advice from your own qualified legal advisor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds very ineteresting.

 

 

 

 

What do you mean by 28+48-72 hours.....can you explain the units you are using - do you mean days?

 

Sorry just to make it clear i mean 28 days plus 48-72 hours that the CRA's need to get the data into a standard format to get on to the system.

 

This procedure is aimed at the financial institution. CRA's dont play ball at all and usually have a take it up with the lender approach to everything.

 

As you can see with the original posting time, I pretty much had this brainwave whilst trying to sleep

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry just to make it clear i mean 28 days plus 48-72 hours that the CRA's need to get the data into a standard format to get on to the system.

 

This procedure is aimed at the financial institution. CRA's dont play ball at all and usually have a take it up with the lender approach to everything.

 

As you can see with the original posting time, I pretty much had this brainwave whilst trying to sleep

 

I see, yes, agreed. Focus must be on the creditor. Forget appealing to the CRAs.

Advice and comments posted by The Debt Star reflect only my personal opinion and it is up to you alone to decide what action you should take. You should always seek independent legal advice from your own qualified legal advisor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need surlybonds to help out with this one

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is the point we are trying to prove. We get 14 days to make good on the default notice. If not, then the finance company / bank send the update to the CRA which takes them atleast 28 days (plus 2-3 days processing) so the default showing on your credit reference should be dated atleast 42 days after the original default notice was issued if done correctly.

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi i have just been reading and wanted to ask if anyone knows that when a default notice is entered or registered and the file says default date should this be 'date defaulted' the last day of the fourteen day i.e the last day of the time to remedy the notice.

or does it just mean the day they eventually add it to the file, if so this is in correct.

so is there ground for removal on this?

thanks guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the last day you have to remedy as in the deadline day of the notice. This procedure is un-explored but I am adding this on to all my letters that I send now. I can confirm Ive had 1 default removed today with that argument included but I had many more points also.

So far I couldnt just use that as my main point as I have found 7-8 points for each account. I think it could be explored by someone who has exhausted all other avenues.

Edited by liquidauctions

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i agree, i have had a few defaults registered 6 months later.

listen to this one had a default from HSBC the breach to remedy in August 2008, but the Default was registered on File in May 2008 4 months earlier when the account was still active.

any advice on getting this removed can you post up a template letter.

bad hey..I have 9 defaults i want to get removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I have no specefic template letter as I am just adding the information from my CRA report to my letter.

I had 2 defaults and a ccj with experian and 3 defaults and a ccj with equifax. Today i had one removed

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i have managed to find you this

 

Data protection act

 

31. The date of default recorded on the file should be the date on which a decision to file a default becomes effective according to the criteria discussed in paragraphs

 

You are best off starting to SAR every account but you NEED to read the Data protection act 1998 and Consumer Credit act 1974. You dont need to read all just the parts regarding defaults etc. You will end up finding so many points they will just take off your default and decide to re submit if the debt isnt paid. Also dont acknowledge any money owed untill you get your signed copy of the agreements

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont rely on template letters. All the banks and finance companies have people who are on these forums and if you just send templates they may want to try it on. It will take a long time to get things sorted. All defaults and ccjs of mine are less than 2 years old so I would rather fight than wait anothr 4 years. I have been working on this a month now and have sent 12 letters to date to 3 different organisations and have managed 1/3 defaults removed.

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a word of warning, although the CRA's sometimes remove defaults, this is normaly due to the DCA's/OC failing to respond in the time required. I had some removed last year and one was re-listed late last year. I only assume this was due to the company responding to the CRA request at a later stage. On the whole they they seem to stay off after removal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I have just found this advice taken from the ICO advice it reads in favour of the above argument

 

The date of default

31 The date of default recorded on the file should be the date on which a decision to file a default becomes effective according to the criteria discussed in paragraphs 9 to 16. If a notice of intention to file a default is served (see paragraphs 32 to 37), the default date should be the date the notice becomes effective. When a default is filed after a genuine and agreed variation in payment schedule has broken down, it should record the date of that breakdown subject to the conditions described in paragraph 21.

Notices

 

any thoughts guys?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When a default is filed after a genuine and agreed variation in payment schedule has broken down, it should record the date of that breakdown subject to the conditions described in paragraph 21.

Notices

 

Hi. Does that mean that if I have been on arrangement to pay for 6 years, making token payments, and it breaks down, that they can slap a Default on a full 6 years after the original arrangement failed?

 

What if they serbed a default notice 6 yaers ago but didn't register it with the CRAs? can they re-send it?

Advice and comments posted by The Debt Star reflect only my personal opinion and it is up to you alone to decide what action you should take. You should always seek independent legal advice from your own qualified legal advisor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Does that mean that if I have been on arrangement to pay for 6 years, making token payments, and it breaks down, that they can slap a Default on a full 6 years after the original arrangement failed?

 

 

What if they serbed a default notice 6 yaers ago but didn't register it with the CRAs? can they re-send it?

Hi Debt star, i would say that because you have been making token payments for 6 years, if you now got served a defsult it would stand for 6 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Does that mean that if I have been on arrangement to pay for 6 years, making token payments, and it breaks down, that they can slap a Default on a full 6 years after the original arrangement failed?

 

What if they serbed a default notice 6 yaers ago but didn't register it with the CRAs? can they re-send it?

 

Nope if they gave you a default notice and you paid and no action has taken then they decided to default you then the following applies

 

Consumer credit act s89 Compliance with default notice. E+W+S+N.I.

If before the date specified for that purpose in the default notice the debtor or hirer takes the action specified under section 88(1)(b) or © the breach shall be treated as not having occurred.

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

If before the date specified for that purpose in the default notice the debtor or hirer takes the action specified under section 88(1)(b) or © the breach shall be treated as not having occurred.

 

sorry, i'm being dim here I know, but is that saying the DN was invalidated by the arrangement to pay? ie they would have to serve a fresh DN before they can register a Default with the CRAs? What I'm trying to determine is whether the creditor can enter a sneaky Default without any pre-emptive warning in a situation where I've been on an AP for 6 years but, as in my case, the payments have been unilaterally reduced by me due to affordability. I'm not sure if s88 helps or not.

Advice and comments posted by The Debt Star reflect only my personal opinion and it is up to you alone to decide what action you should take. You should always seek independent legal advice from your own qualified legal advisor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had a PM to have a look, I can only add what I think.

 

Defaults: If a default notice is served and you pay what the default notice says you have to before the date on the default notice, that notice is effectively cancelled.

This does not stop them serving a default in the future if you miss payments or if you enter a DMP.

If you have received a default notice and failed to pay in time, the creditor can (not must) then file the default with the Credit Reference Agencies. That default (if they choose to file) must be done within 6 months of the initial cause of action (missed first payment)

 

 

If you receive a default notice giving you 14 days to pay and then they terminate the account before the 14 days are up, that, to me, is unlawful termination.

 

If you receive a default notice giving you more than 14 days to pay and they terminate before the days are up (but after 14 days), that is a minimal failing as you had the minimum and more to rectify. I do believe this was covered by Brandon-V-Amex

 

This from the ICO is pretty good at explaining things:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Silver Thanks,

 

Can you shed some light on default notices, and how they are registered with the CRA, some are being registered 6 months later that the last day of the effective default notice.

heres some guidance fom the ICO

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?290099-DEFAULT-REMOVAL-A-breakthrough-procedure&p=3262864&viewfull=1#post3262864

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite clear what you mean but I think it is this

 

If you fail to pay the default sum by the date on the notice, they then file the default with the CRA's (up to)6 months later.

 

If that is what you are saying then I think that's wrong. The default should be placed as soon as possible after default notice runs out

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite clear what you mean but I think it is this

 

If you fail to pay the default sum by the date on the notice, they then file the default with the CRA's (up to)6 months later.

 

If that is what you are saying then I think that's wrong. The default should be placed as soon as possible after default notice runs out

 

Hi Silver yes exactly, that what I mean the last day of the default should be the default date on the credit file. this is confirmed by the ICO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...