thank you very much

His no good with computers so asked me to help him out

Thanks not sure about extra excess or a higher insurance premium next year will ask, his home insurance paid out for the wall and said they would recoup it from dpd. Had a garage come out and the cars a write off

Looking for a bit of help for my nephew. Short story is a DPD van crash through his garden wall and into a car on his drive which was not insured His home insurance has sorted the wall and he has been paid out but they will not help with the car, so he contacted dpd insurance company who have informed him because the driver claims the van suffered a blow out they are not responsible for the damage to his car and will not deal with the matter. So would I be right in saying they are responsible ? if so and court action is needed would it be dpd or the insurance company that a claim is made against Thanks for any help

Ok some more detail I do have the postmarked envelope which is 07/08/21 and I got 10/08/21 as 2nd class stamp The actual letter inside is dated 25/07/21 The builder lives at the end of my street which is only 6 houses and we do not see eye to eye to say the least, I have a private drive that I park on land that is on my deeds. he started some work on his drive which has a footpath between mine and his of about 4 foot. He place a cement mixer on the footpath facing my car and used it all day covering the full length of my car with concrete and it wasn,t until late evening I came out to see it. Comforted him and he offered a fiver to wash it down !! I took the car to a body shop who quoted £1350 to repair the damage and gave me a quote, in his defence he claims it was just dirt and would wash off with soap and water. In his defence he admits he took pictures before he started as he knew there would be trouble. In my mind he binned the letter before action as an empty threat and when the summons landed he has backed tracked I think i have uploaded the defence right Doc_20210812_212626.pdf

Thank you I will do tonight once I am home

No this is the only one I posted and thanks

Forgive me if this is in the wrong place I have issued a small claim against a builder who wrecked my car with a concrete from a cement mixer, now in their defence they claimed they sent me a letter in reply to my letter before action offering to settle the matter outside of court but have withdrawn that offer now as I have taken court action and told the court I was being unreasonable not giving them time or replying to their letter. However they have back dated the letter to look like that but they just popped a 2nd class stamp on it and it was posted the same day as they filed their defence. So they have clearly lied on their defence statement by saying they offered to resolve the matter but I ignored their reply. Clearly they did not think about post marks. What is my best course of action thanks HERES A LITTLE TIMELINE 20/07/21I SENT A LETTER BEFORE ACTION ( NO REPLY ) 03/08/21 I ISSUE SUMMONS 07/08/21 SUMMONS DEEDED SERVED 07/08/21 DEFENCE LOGGED 10/08/21 I get their letter offering to settle before court action, letter is dated 25/07/21 but postmarked 07/08/20

Just a quick update I have managed to speak to someone from the fraud team who maintain they were within their rights to upload a fraud entry but having looked at the account again they will remove said entry. While this is a great outcome I still feel it is wrong they can upload a fraud marker because they * think* I took out an account to defraud them when it was a pay as you go dongle so impossible to get anything more than i paid for. Thank you for taking the time to speak to me. This account was taken out on 27 November 2015 for a Dongle on a 30 day commitment. You do have to call to cancel the agreement and give the required 30 days’ notice which I can see from my records you did so however this was the day after payment was due . I can confirm our Fraud Team have removed the Fraud Flag. This particular CIFAS flag is loaded when an account is cancelled for non-payment after the first bills were paid . The loading itself is for evasion of payment which means that you had entered into a contract with EE, with no intention to pay. Therefore, this fits under first party fraud, misuse of the facility. The CIFAS entry was loaded correctly, however, as the balance has been adjusted, they have removed the entry from CIFAS. Any lenders viewing a brand-new copy of your report, dated after 21 August 2020, via Experian, TransUnion or Equifax will no longer see the information. If you would like to talk to us If you’d like to talk to me about this, or anything in my email, please call me on 0800079 0232. I am in the office this week until tomorrow 9.30am to 5.30pm. Thanks again Thomas for getting in touch. I stay safe.

Thank you I will do

an update and so more help with the above topic, I have managed to speak to someone about the issue and it turns out I was right and the default was placed in error as I had bought the device and was on a pay as you go data plan and had paid for all services I had used. The lady from ee confirmed this and the default has been removed from my credit file. However the entry on the cifas database has not as this needs to be done via EE credit referrals but they have no phone number and only an email address. I have had no reply from them so want to know who/how I go about contacting to get help so any ideas

Many thanks my account has been closed and I have to go into branch to get my balance and savings back as they wanted to send me a cheque and it was Nationwide. If you could help with a draft that would be fantastic as I really do not know where to start.

Even if that was the case it would be a case of non payment and not fraud

The marker is from EE, I did not even know I had it until i tried to upgrade my bank account and got turned down and then had my account froze and then closed National Fraud Database entry filed by: EE Ltd t/a T-Mobile(UK) Application date:27 November2015 Date recorded:27 April 2016 Product relating to the application,proposal,account or facility: Communications- Mobile Phone Facility: Granted Case type: Misuse of facility

It was defiantly a rolling contact because it was had to be renewed each month, I had to log onto an account and load £20 there was no D/D and I bought a data device. The cifas entry appears to say I used a bank account for fraudulent purpose

This is what I do not understand It was for a data sim card where EE took £20 in advance for 20gb of data each month on a month by month rolling contract once I had used the data it would switch off so impossible to use any more than I had already paid for. If I wanted to carry on using it i would have to log on and pay another £20. I used the service for a few months and then did not renew the contract and heard no more My bank account was used for ID purposes only and was my main bank account with all my wages and d/d and held for 7 years plus, no insurance was taken out and no other accounts opened. This is my point EE have listed this and has no connected with the data they have entered

It was a data sim because my internet in the house was down I bought the sim from EE and used it in a data module that I also bought from ee at a cost of £100, They performed a credit check so had to give them my nationwide bank details for this. It was just a sim card no phone or module or insurance, it was £20 per month on a rolling contract where they took the £20 in advance for the data. On my credit file they have a default of non payment of £20 dating back to 2016

Looking for some advice, back in 2015 I bought a ee sim card for data not a mobile phone and it was not on a contract it was a monthly thing where as I understood I paid £20 and had 20gb of data to use. I stopped topping up after 2 months and the data stopped, after applying for a c/c I was refused and my bank account was cancelled and I was told to check CIFAS file and was shocked to find First party fraud - (Opening an account or other facility for a fraudulent purpose or the fraudulent misuse of an account or facility; or taking out an insurance policy for a fraudulent purpose or the fraudulent misuse of an insurance policy and/or insurance policy documentation) Which looks like they are saying I opened my bank account to commit fraud, I had the bank account 7 years before. So any ideas how I go about getting this removed

This is partly mine fault but would like some advice, basically someone bought a item from me and i somehow got them confused with another buyer so sent them their item and the other buyers item. Now both were delivered on the same day and signed for, as soon as i realised i ask them if i could send a returns label for the wrong. This was the day after both were delivered however the receiver claims to have kept their item and binned the other one which is very unlikely as they both had the same labels on with my return address. Just want to know if its totally my fault and just take it ( £250) or if i were to take court action would i have a chance ?

Hi guys sorry if this is the wrong place but hopefully someone can help me I sold a car on ebay to a dealer who picked the car up and filled in all the paperwork and handed me the yellow slip of the logbook telling me they were a trader so i had to send that part off. This i did via first class mail I also cancelled my D/D for the road tax and all was good until i received a letter to say my D/D had failed and as my car was no longer taxed i was being fined £80. So i wrote back telling the DVLA i had infact informed them as above, next i get a letter to say the fine stands unless i appeal which i did. I appealed on the grounds i sent away the log book and cancelled my D/D and included the receipt for the sale of the car, also proof that i changed my insurance over to my new car and the receipt for the new road tax on my new car. My appeal was rejected on the grounds that while i considered that i had fulfilled my legal obligation by course of post under section 7 of the interpretations act 1978 DVLA consider it is not enough for a registered keeper to just state that they are compliant. They then go on to say there is no legal liability for me to chase up an acknowledgement letter and they accept that however its a legal requirement that i ensure the car is taxed. So they have given me 5 days to pay the fine or take further action and they consider the matter closed. So is there anything i can do ?? thanks

The signed notice they did have looked made up a fact i pointed out in my defense, it was on plain paper with no company heading of the OC and a photocopy signature that had clearly been cut/pasted as it was at at angle !!

Really could not tell you Lowell quoted the property act and the judge can back with sub section of this and that it went over my head. At the end the judge said it was up to Lowell to provide her with absolute proof they owned the debt and the only way was sight of the deed

Sorry could not catch all the sub sections but her point was Lowell had to satisfy her that they owned the debt and she would be happy to look at the deed in private as the court wanted absolute proof No the deed was the first point the judge wanted sorted when Lowell refused she dismissed the case They did have a signed notice of assignment from the OC

Thanks No the Judge said of her own back that Lowell had to prove to her they bought the debt and the only way they could do that is with sight of the deed, the Lowell solicitor came back with the "property act" ? but the judge just came back with "prove it"

Hi guys just back from Durham County Court with a victory over Lowell and it seems i found a Judge who would not be told the law. My case was around a 5 year old debt that i was being chased for but was not mine, Lowell issued a claim despite me sending them a letter to deny the debt. Once i had the claim i sent off a CCA request and it took Lowell 67 days to send some of the information asked for and in this case the Deed of assignment was asked for but Lowell refused and instead sent a hashed up copy of a notice of assignment claiming the Deed was between them and their client. I scanned this forum and got some good advice but the advice was split regards the deed with some saying it does not need to be shown and others saying it should. Well today the judge rather slapped down the Lowell solicitor who told her she had no need to see the deed as the letter of assignment was proof enough. The judge came back with a raft of legal points before dismissing the case stating without the deed Lowell could not prove they owned the debt