arthur256
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by arthur256
-
Damage to credit reputation - Solicitor
arthur256 replied to arthur256's topic in Telecoms - mobile or fixed
Thanks. I filed a Notice of Correction in February. I will wait for the end of 8 weeks and see what happens. -
Damage to credit reputation - Solicitor
arthur256 replied to arthur256's topic in Telecoms - mobile or fixed
Thanks. My complaint has been completely ignored, even a Letter before Action! If they aren't operating the statutory 8 week complaints procedure, I am not sure what is the best move! Maybe I just go to the Ombudsman, though they usually require evidence of a deadlocked complaint. I could go to the small claims, but am not sure what is the right amount to claim or how to describe it. A Solicitor would know and would no doubt claim their fee too? -- Arthur -
I have a dispute with a mobile phone company which failed to change my payments to DD from a new bank account. I didn't refuse/fail to pay, they stupidly failed to collect. I was forced to switch to another provider as I needed a working service. They have now posted adverse data to Equifax. Somebody some months ago mentioned a Solicitor who specializes in claims for "damage to credit reputation". Can somebody please point me in the direction of this Solicitor? Many thanks -- Arthur
-
Credit Rating Damage - Can I claim Compensation?
arthur256 replied to a topic in Debt Collection Agencies
May I please enquire which company you used to pursue your compensation? Arthur -
Thanks. The matter is already with the Ombudsman, but we are finding it difficult to get all the evidence ready for them. Interestingly this CAG website had displayed a box - right across your post - about not having much faith in the service! I am familiar with MCOL, having put HSBC through the system earlier this year over unlawful bank charges, and also Vanquis in 2012. Will discuss next move with my wife. Cheers Arthur
-
In Feb 2014 I transferred from First Utility to Scottish Power, having been told by "The Big London Energy Switch" that SP could handle readings from my electricity Smart Meter. It quickly became clear that they could not, we switched back to First Utility. Scottish Power had garbled our meter number, claiming we did not have the electricity Smart Meter! They also failed to agree transfer readings, resulting in a 74kWh overcharge where both companies charged for that block of electricity. They know what the correct meter readings were. After numerous complaints, which never get dealt with, a nd my wife spending several hours on the phone over the past four months, I am considering Court action. What is a reasonable amount to expect as compensation for the ongoing delay and incompetence?
-
Nothing more happened; the matter has now dropped off CRA files, and is dead!
-
Compensation for incorrect data on CRA files ** RESOLVED **
arthur256 replied to arthur256's topic in General Legal Issues
Apologies for delay in updating. Although (as previously posted) I had judgment entered online, the court had made a blunder earlier, and had failed to process acknowledgment from HSBC, meaning they had more time to defend. They noticed the day I instructed a bailiff (under the old rules), and it was then scheduled for mediation, but nothing on that happened at the Court. HSBC made a small offer which I ignored, and they subsequently offered almost exactly what had been entered in the judgment, including fees, which I then accepted and it was settled last week. I am not sure whether I got all of my bank charges back, but the settlement was acceptable. End of matter. -
Compensation for incorrect data on CRA files ** RESOLVED **
arthur256 replied to arthur256's topic in General Legal Issues
Thanks. The DCA's solicitors wrote apologizing for the delay in removal, and promised that it would be removed urgently by the end of this week. It has already gone from Equifax but not the other two. -
This appears closed now. The CRA entries have "dropped off" last month.
-
Have been following the Durkin case, and now have a query: In 2006-2008 HSBC applied excessive bank charges after DWP stopped my DLA payment (in error) but later paid the arrears. I had been very ill and the local branch had said they would be sympathetic as it was not my fault. Charges were inflated to £1315 and although I requested a review as a priority case they started putting DCAs in touch (four of them in all). Eventually I got fed up and issued a MoneyClaimOnline, last month, and have now filed Judgment. The last of the four DCAs also registered the "debt" with CRAs, so I sued them jointly. They however sent the file back to HSBC and therefore I cancelled my claim against the DCA, and asked them to remove the CRA entry as they had surrendered the matter. They haven't removed it, and it is now the only remaining "debt" on CRA files for me. My credit score is low and quotes the debt as a factor. Is there any guidance somewhere on quantifying compensation in this situation?
-
I can now confirm that this creditor is quite obviously Aqua Mastercard, a brand of Progressive Credit Ltd. In addition to the current card, they have also somehow resurrected an old account which I closed at the start of 2013. It shows as unreported for the intervening months. The account numbers reported are nothing like the actual card numbers. As both show as paid up to date I am not particularly bothered but relieved that I know who it is.
-
Thanks. Will do, but I doubt it is a 'debt purchaser'. My accounts are not likely to be for sale, being totally up-to-date since opened, both Capital One and Aqua cards. Equifax have been renumbering some entries, but this is more than a renumbering.
-
This has been variously reported as Capital One and/or Aqua. I looked at the numbers quoted (last 4 digits) and they do not match either, as far as I can see. Aqua has recently changed its office and computer, and have become rather chaotic. They just charged me interest - even though they had collected the previous balance in full by DD. They used to be handled by HBOS in Dunfermline, but no more. No doubt somebody will soon work out who BHAP0042 really is. Cheers Arthur
-
But... MBNA admitted that they had made a mistake less than a month after they (purportedly) assigned it and agreed there was no default as I had paid on time (and Link have copied to me recently the statement showing this). MBNA had records of the offer agreed with my wife. They said they were going to contact Link and get it put right as the assignment was invalid, but AFAIK never did, or more likely Link were difficult about it. I have consistently denied the validity of the assignment, and Link have not proved anything otherwise. They go quiet for perhaps a year and then start phoning e.g. when we are on holiday. I think I saw a post on CAG from somebody working for a solicitor. Would that be the sort of person who could take this on for me? I am able to pay reasonable charges even though disabled and retired. Arthur
-
Indeed. I have been ignoring them, but am quite keen to have them on the receiving end of some judgment about harassment and dubious practice. I took a fringe bank to court earlier this year, and got a favourable settlement, on a completely unrelated matter, but I consider Link to be a far worse setup causing many people a lot of pain. Arthur
-
Thanks. There is no PPI involved. I have never opted in to PPI except on one particular loan, and in that case I ended up putting in a huge claim when hospitalized for six months. I got the maximum benefit in fact and have been disabled ever since. Definitely PPI not applicable here. I think the 30% discount offered was because of my disability. One bank wrote off £2.5K completely due to my health. I don't agree that Link own anything, as the purported assignment was invalid due to MBNA breaching the existing repayment agreement. Link were told this in 2008 and have done nothing at all to prove ownership. They are just relying on the fact that they had posted details with CRAs. Defaulted date as per the CRA summary is 30/01/2008 as previously posted. As far as I can ascertain, Durkin remains unresolved - unless this has changed. I am reluctant to rely on an earlier stage of what is, overall, still unresolved. Arthur
-
Thanks. I thought so! MBNA - yes. Account supposedly defaulted and sold on 30/01/2008. However it was subject to an ongoing repayment plan by agreement with my wife on my behalf, due to health/disability issues. The assignment was invalid because the account was in dispute, and also in breach of what MBNA had agreed with my wife, namely that if I paid for 3 months they would accept 30% in full and final settlement. Somebody at MBNA said it was sold because I had not paid in January 2008, obviously not aware that January has 31 days. Link have sent me a statement from MBNA which clearly shows a payment on 30/01/2008. I am prepared to take Link to Court for harassing us over the five and a half years, failure to comply with my request under Section 77-79 of the CCA, holding of and transmission of my data to Equifax and Experian when not entitled, and illegally sending a third party's copy agreement to me. I could use my Solicitor but would find the whole business awkward, as they now consider me a HNW client! (I would have been happy to pay 30% to MBNA, who were not unreasonable, just somebody got his dates in a muddle). Regards Arthur
-
In another thread there appears the following statement regarding CCA agreement defaults: "You have not replied to this request within the statutory period and therefore, under s78(6) of the Act, you may not enforce any agreement you may suppose to exist between us. That means, you may not 1) request payment on the account 2) add any charges or interest to the account 3) communicate any details regarding the account to any third parties. This inludes but is not limited to Credit Reference Agencies." Is item 3 really true? I have a dispute with Link over an invalidly assigned MBNA debt, which has been in default for several years due to Link persistently failing to send the Consumer Credit Agreement. They eventually sent me somebody else's CCA and I have reported this to the Information Commissioner. So it remains in default. They have continued to supply adverse data to Equifax and Experian, probably CallCredit too. If item 3 above is correct, how can I get the information deleted please? I already have a Notice of Dispute filed with both main CRAs, who said (when I first mentioned the situation) that they cannot remove it without Link's agreement. TIA
-
An update FWIW: Link eventually responded to the request for the CCA - several years late - by sending me the MBNA agreement for somebody else! I have reported this to the ICO, who are taking it seriously and have asked me for a copy of it so they can consider action against Link. I also reported them to the OFT, who have noted the complaint and will consider complaints when renewing the licences of both Link companies.
-
Thanks for prompt response. This is effectively what I have told Marlin (assignee).
-
Is it true that a creditor cannot assign to a third party a debt which is in dispute? Can somebody please quote "chapter and verse" about that please?
-
Forcing a CCJ to conclusion - help sought
arthur256 replied to arthur256's topic in Financial Legal Issues
I am really only asking for a statement now, as the balance seems to have been inflated. They promised on before but never sent it. -
Forcing a CCJ to conclusion - help sought
arthur256 replied to arthur256's topic in Financial Legal Issues
Slow progress as yet... Hillesden have again promised paperwork which they already defaulted on years ago. If they don't get it to me shortly then I am going back to Court seeking a striking out. -
Further news... LFOL replied, sending me somebody else's Consumer Credit Agreement (!) - not mine. So they are still in default, and have added a major breach of confidentiality to their dubious record! They also enclosed a statement from MBNA which clearly indicates that I did NOT default in 2008, which means MBNA's purported assignment to LFL is almost certainly invalid. I am copying details to the Ombudsman, where my LFL complaint remains pending. So LFL/LFOL are trying to collect on an assignment of dubious validity, made in breach of the repayment agreement which was in force at the time. My understanding from other posts is that such a situation precludes them registering details at a CRA - is this true, and can somebody please quote "chapter and verse" about that?
