Because they wanted to get their post count number up in order to spam us. Now sorted!

6 threads merged. If you keep starting new threads about the same issue, you'll never get decent advice - users will not be able to follow your story and will not see replies by you when you update a new thread.

I'm sure each financial institution will have its own take on credit worthiness etc, but I would imagine that a default is not going to restrict your employment. I know of a B.S. that asks potential employees if they have any CCJs or have ever been declared bankrupt, but there's no mention of defaults or late payments etc. I wouldn't let it stop you from completing the application process.

Girls and boys, don't make us take the toys away. Play nice.

Hi FB I've downloaded the file and had a quick peekaboo. I will also give some feedback once I get a chance - good effort though.

And yet you appear to have done the same again... You may have proof that you were charged for calls you did not make, but until they have been found guilty of an offence, you have no proof that they have acted illegally. Again, until they have been found guilt of an offence, you do not have what you believe - you have something which might suggest so. This is merely a generalisation. Does one problem mean that all their staff are incompetent? No, it merely suggests an isolated problem. In the context of your own plight, your personal opinion that they have acted unfairly or with some level of incompetence against you is unlikely to be seen as such, but then again only a Court can really answer that. My own view is that there is little chance of it, although the word you used which has been edited may have been, hence its removal. Absolutely not. If we don't exist, there could be no help. The number of posts removed or edited because users cannot be bothered to tone down their posts is quite minimal and has no real impact of finding out what companies really do, or what problems really do affect our members.

I know this is not a call for votes etc but I'm very much with the NO party here. I see some examples of it every week (in my day job) and I never like the look of it. I always find it harder to read because there's no consistency with the spacing. Starting a new sentence with a short word is commonplace using that method - it never looks right to me. I also recall reading somewhere that this sort justification is a trigger to reducing 'page reads' and click-throughs on websites - I will see if I can find that article later. Yuk

2 threads merged. Please don't start any new threads in relation to this particular problem - it will undoubtedly mean that new readers will not be able to see the full extent of advice given and will likely deflect from you obtaining best advice.

JUST FOR CLARITY For any users reading this, general comments about the problem itself can be found on a separate thread HERE. Please keep this discussion solely to the issues outlined in the opening post - i.e. in relation to NHS staff operating separate companies or jobs etc.

It's actually a phrase that was used with cases for bank charge reclaims (and similar) some time ago but has never been challenged as a specific point in court (to the best of my knowledge). Effectively we were asking the banks to provide evidence that its staff had applied work manually to our accounts which in turn could provide evidence of their costs incurred. I certainly wouldn't pay too much attention to it now. Proceed with the claim as per normal...

Only one default can be issued against any one debt/account. This is irrespective of the debt being sold or handled by any other party. They could, if circumstances were right, proceed to court for repayment and this could result in a CCJ against you, but there are steps to take if that is the case and it is not a forgone conclusion.

webs - I've only just started to read through this thread and I'm a little confused, to say the least. Have you submitted the court claim or are you defending an action against you? If you are defending, what are the POC in the case against you?

although, in fairness, more room at the bar (since I've clearly got to buy my own now....)

Three have a free use area which I believe is what Gyz is talking about. I use them myself. They tried to charge one of my account with a football service a few months back - I phoned to complain that I have never requested this and after a little bit of a heated discussion, they agreed to remove the charges. I hope you can get the same response Gyzmo.

Wow - a hitman. They do charge a lot now, don't they. I'll do it for £500.

There is nothing to stop you from giving the details of how someone could check this for themselves though.

Ahh, you've been sent down for 2 weeks then... Typical.

Responding to a post, Buzby, is what this forum is all about. If we were to sit and wait for the other party to tell us their side before we offer advice, we would have a very quite place. I take it that you can now see I was responding to the point raised by the OP though, and not making things up as you suggested?

As you can see if you read the opening post, Buzby, there is a situation described by the OP. I don't think it wise for me to create a discussion based on anything but that, so I shall repeat what was written for you if this makes it easier So I'm afraid you are imagining things - I am responding to the precise scenario as outlined by the OP, nothing more, nothing less. You must have misunderstood me - I have made it quite clear that I do not believe, in the slightest, the either the DD scheme nor the bank were at fault in any way. Would it help if I requoted that for you also? I have clearly stated that the company who made this statement to the OP was in error, and that this error should be corrected, perhaps by way of training of the staff who deal with customers in this context. IF the op had been told something more accurate, like "sorry but we can't stop that payment being applied for" then it is feasible that the OP would have tried to do something else, thus possibly avoiding the failed DD and subsequent charge. That is not fantasy, not by a long shot. Since the OP has not returned to this thread since the opening post, I doubt we have much chance of finding out, but you never know.

Whilst this may seem draconian to some, we have always resisted the use of PMs to exchange information of this nature. The primary reason being that using documents to challenge a legal position etc should be open to scrutiny - letters that can be used as a template can be shown on the forum and, where appropriate, could be added to our template library for everyone to use. This is not intended to highlight a problem with the letters being discussed here, per se, simply a general position. In short - be aware of communication by PM.

Who needs enemies....

Free beer is much overated.

Well, in that case, you really do need to make your posts clear, because the following don't suggest this, in the slightest... But it's OK, we will forgive you. For clarity, I am not attempting to say that the DD Scheme is in any way responsible, merely that the timescale required to cancel is not 5 days. On the main subject there was an error and no defending will correct it. A company employs staff to advise it's customers, and those staff tell a customer that they can make an alternative payment and not worry about the DD. You may believe that the OP should have realised this could not be the case (me too), but to be told it would be fine by the customer service rep is misleading, and they (the company) have a duty to the customer because of that. The staff member made an error - either in fact or in judgment, but an error was made. Should the company now decide (upon complaint) to retrain - or simply train - its staff, then so be it. There is no get out clause for them to say something along the lines of "the CSR should not have said that, so it is not our fault". They were advised, they took the advice, made the payment and were then still hit by a charge because they had been misled. I do understand that this is often a hard concept for you to grasp - but you don't actually have to roll over and you can actually fight your corner. I would suggest to the OP that they do just that. Make a complaint about the advice given, make clear what this resulted in, and demand a repayment of any fees incurred. There's no harm in talking to the bank also, although I can't see that they are in any way at fault. Sometimes a little common sense does prevail with them though, and they can see that it would be good practice to waive the fee.

It may not have been an error on the part of the bank (clearly they were not informed separately) and thus not an error of the DD itself, but it was nonetheless an error. The company agreed not to take money by DD on this occasion so there is course for recompense if this resulted in charges. If it were not capable of doing this, it should not have been offered to the customer. Incidentally, the time required for cancellation of a DD is not 5 days, it can be cancelled up to and including the date of payment due (see here) although if you can give more time, then it would always be wiser to do so.

I know because I see reported posts and complaints. You don't, obviously, so you wouldn't know - there's nothing strange in that. Those who 'publicise' for reputation marks are also not breaking any site rules, so YES, it is OK. I think people can see beyond the request for reputation and will give it where due, not simply because it is asked for. Irrespective of this, the reputation level of a user does nothing to enhance the quality of their posts.