Grattan wipes debt!!! Help still needed re Credit ref agencies.

[Revenant]

woah....this is MY thread!!! ha ha, come on guys, chill, we are all on here for the same reason. Please can you ALL help me with the title of this thread!! thanks

 

Well said

I think the title of your thread is ok for although it is not quite right as you now know it might help draw new comers in and give them an insight to the situation without them having to go through lots of other threads

Regards

R

[B3rty]

woah....this is MY thread!!! ha ha, come on guys, chill, we are all on here for the same reason. Please can you ALL help me with the title of this thread!! thanks

 

Hillards has made a reasonable point and fergal represents another point of view however we shouldn't make assumptions and perhaps all I would add is follow the guidelines I have given...it worked for me with one DCA however all the rest still report to CRA's so I just wait the 6 years which is up in 2012.

[miss money worry]

Its worked for me too, i am more than happy with them just not pursuing me anymore, it was well worth writing the letters. I think the DCA's hold off once they think you know what you are talking about, because to me, they dont have a clue! Anyway, I will keep posting new threads for each one i get sorted, and thanks for ALL opinions, cos thats what they are, just opinions, but some opinions on here have got me to where i am now and i am eternally grateful! x:D

[fergal71]

I would also check other threads as many would also believe and give advice on removing default.... you might need to get credit in future so to try will cost very little with help from here....

[hillards]

woah....this is MY thread!!! ha ha, come on guys, chill, we are all on here for the same reason. Please can you ALL help me with the title of this thread!! thanks

 

Agreed, and my original post here, and the one in your other thread, were supposed to answer your questions. You acknowledged that you understood the situation, which sort of winds this one up as complete as far as I could see.

 

I refrained from further comments about the earlier difference of opinion, after the moderator had said their piece, as there's no point going over old ground and upsetting people who feel I'm having a go at them personally. Maybe they will feel differently in the cold light of day?

 

There are tried and tested methods and templates on here that work, as you have discovered. My 'higher ground' as someone suggests, is that there are those advocating that everyone take it a lot further and commence battle with the credit reference agencies and so on, which can only end in tears. It's not what CAG was set up for and whilst I am probably looking to the moral approach, it is possible that some harm could come of pushing like that.

 

Imagine if the court judge were to read some of the stuff on here, where people are being told to do all sorts of different things, instead of sticking to the script (CAG template etc.) - their case comes up before that judge, he asks a few questions, knowing that the person has no real idea why they were asking for their credit record to be removed.

 

Unless the person has been the subject of identitiy theft, which is fraud, can they honestly stand up in a court of law and say they did not have the goods in the first place? That the account never existed? The catalogue company could produce delivery notes, possibly signatures for accepting goods at the door. Why did the person not dispute that before the matter got as far as debt recovery and court action?

 

That is the point I was making - rocking the boat by insisting the CRA's remove details could result in a test case going to the courts and the judge saying that the CCA does not matter, as long as the company have evidence an account existed - how many people would then be in serious trouble then? It's as easy as asking them to show a CCA document at present, a loophole. Why spoil it for others by pushing harder?

 

In this case, getting back to the point, the original poster is happy that the debt is not being chased and knows that their credit record will show the debt for up to 6 years. Result?

 

I said that it is not really on to go to the CRA and ask for details to be removed, others have a different viewpoint. It's up to those reading this to decide what course of action they want to take. I've done what I can to explain why I have said this. Is it really taking the moral high ground, or just being sensible?

[fergal71]

moral high ground I think, judges will decide cases on points of law and those that breach the law should be challenged even if just to clean up their own act.... in the meantime if people benefit from their errors then great if judges make their own decisions then they should be challenged...appeals etc until the law is enforced correctly these regulations and laws are put in place to protect the consumer and if businesses in an attempt to save money dont get their house in order then stuff the moral high ground... they should suffer also ... like I have said they have no morality when you nake a mistake... do they say oh dont woory just pay double next month.... no they make you call on 0845 numbers , they then charge you for missing payment , some companies then cut your equipment off and then charge for reconnection, they charge for paying by cash and not direct debit.... what next ????

 

They gave up their rights for us to be moral when they forget theirs!!!!!!

[hillards]

moral high ground I think

Only your opinion of course - If you want to do everything you can to clear your credit record then you are free to do so, but I don't believe CAG was set up to do that, only to assist people who had problems, to stop them being terrorised and intimidated by companies chasing debt.

 

My opinion here is that people are being advised to ask for their credit records to be cleansed, a step too far where there is no dispute that a debt did exist. It goes well beyond what I would advise people to do anyway.

[fergal71]

please dont predict what cag was set up for , it has eveolved as the issues have... as you say just my opininon but I believe cra do not have any right legal or otherwise to hold our data... and I think that they will face a tsunami very soon... the more the merrier lets get back to face to face banking and let the weakest fail... not prop them up... as one industry faces challenges such as the banks are doing another will rise(manufacturing) these things happen in cycles and have done over hundreds of years..... good luck hillards but I recommend if you have no help to what someone is trying to achieve then I would leave thread alone for someone who may be able to help rather than give moral opinion... IMHO

[hillards]

please dont predict what cag was set up for

To predict is to look ahead and produce a forecast of some sort, very difficult to predict when something has already happened, and I feel you are incorrect to suggest in that CAG has evolved into something that is there to advise people to go against the laws of the land in making false claims. To remove information from a credit reference file requires solid proof that a debt does not exist, not a loophole in the law that prevents enforcement collecting it.

 

I am not propping up the bank industry and supporting them, just putting the point of view over that people are being told to do this, do that, as though that is the way to do things, as CAG is designed to help with. Newcomers then fall into the trap of demanding documents under CPR and all sorts, which is going to cause ripples with the many agencies who deal with these matters. They then trace it back to CAG and could discredit the site if that becomes widespread. That is why I said I don't believe CAG was set up to do that.

 

...I recommend if you have no help to what someone is trying to achieve then I would leave thread alone for someone who may be able to help rather than give moral opinion... IMHO

I do have to take issue with that - if you look at the original posters other thread, I offered a lot of information about where she stood in relation to 'wiping out debt', this thread is very similar and I simply referred to that other thread here, but was then amazed to see some of the advice being given.

 

I don't know who tickled my scales, but I see a new comment which says "A sensible, considered viewpoint that takes the long-term view." on my reputation received page of the control panel here. A lot of 'blobs' have been passed my way for advice given, so please don't suggest that I do not help people with the advice or information I pass on.

 

Read back, carefully, what was said to the OP. Her questions were answered, she understands the situation now. It is what, in my opinion, some muddying the waters that has become the topic of these further discussions. One poster felt I was insulting them by referring to a post they made as part of this thread. A moderator thought otherwise.

 

For whatever reason, you have a red mist in your eyes when it comes to the CRA's and you suggest people apply to have their credit record cleared. If this went to the courts, and the judge was presented with details of a catalogue account, such as this, where deliveries have been made and the account holder has never suggested that there was any identity theft, to prove they didn't have the goods, the judge would look at the details of the account that the company concerned had kept, and could ask one simple question - "do you claim that you never had these goods?" - and that would be case closed, the credit reports remain active.

 

Unless you have a concrete method to remove such records legally then I suggest you are the one with the wrong impressing of what CAG was set up to do and how it has evolved. The site originators would never endorse anything that could be seen to be 'dodgy', and pushing a CRA to remove records that are not disputed seems pretty futile.

 

Imagine if that judgement then become part of the issue with the CCA requests that people have made, to show that these companies did not have the required documentation to enforce payment - a ruling at court, on proving a debt exists, could be applied to that procedure. The Manchester cases have come very close to that already, by saying that the customer is not entitled to a 'true copy' by way of a copy of the original document, but that a reconstruction is acceptable.

 

Clarity on what is the normal procedure, with templates and so on provided by CAG, and advice going beyond that is what I was trying to point out to readers of this thread, including the OP. She has acheived what she needed to do through following earlier advice.

 

However, the company she was dealing with had asked what her intentions were by demanding paperwork under the CPR, which is where I mentioned the moral issues - not that the financial institutions deserve being handled with kid gloves, but that a person should not automatically follow the route of trying to clear their credit record if they had simply stopped enforcement of collection.

 

It is your opinion that the CRA should be forced to remove the details, not something that CAG produces template letters or has procedures for. That is where I think this discussion is needing clarification. Opinion is one thing, established procedure is another.

 

Further apologies to the original poster, but I do reserve the right to defend my own credibility where it is called into question like this and it is relevant to this thread, as this is where these points have come up. Again, this is simply my opinion, mainly based on the regular happenings of this site.

[gezwee]

Have to agree with Hillards on all points raised.

 

If however the OP wants to proceed then they should prepare themselves for a long battle.

 

One way of acheiving a result would be via a SAR in order to audit the account and 'argue' discrepancies....... FGH by the way have significant holes in their financial records with data blocks of 6-8 month periods missing during 2004 & 2006.

 

ie: Balance April '06 at circa £400.00, balance October '06 at circa £1400.00.... with no evidence of transactions during this period they would be lawfully bound to credit the difference.

 

Whilst I personnally had a good result against this company its not something I would encourage unless its absolutely necessary to your financial wellbeing or needs and will cause you endless headaches.

 

There is also a none too insignificant issue of non compliancy action, whilst I was fortunate to have mine listed as a part 7 claim there appear to be a fair few DJ's who will transfer to part 8 and leave the claimant (you) open to costs if you fail to argue correctly.

 

For the benefit of the OP and should they wish to hassle FGH I've listed a couple of landline numbers below...... wouldnt encourage calling direct unless you are recording your calls though and fully understand the processes:

 

Legal dept (): 01274 575511

PPI : 0800 7311 731

 

Best of luck

 

Gez

[themagician]

hilliards, there are no blacks and whites in life, but lots of shades in between. One could also argue that the same is true of many things. Hence, judges interpret facts in different ways. same facts, same legislation, different outcomes.

 

Above, I gave my opinion. It may be right according to one judge, wrong according to another. The law is subject to interpretation, and as such may be interpreted differently.

 

My opinion is that if there is no agreement to repay the money, or the terms of any repayment were not agreed, or the agreements cannot be found, how can it be said that the person has defaulted?

 

maybe the agreement was that the customer would pay it back in 3 years time, but the creditor wants the money back after 1 year. Is that a default by the customer?

 

My opinion may not stand up in court. Or it may, because the statement I ask is a logical one.

 

However, I don't like the impression given by you linking my quote with your opinion of the quality of advice and motivation of many members here. Your opinion of those matters is just that, until you link my post to it in a way that suggests I'm guilty of giving poor or incorrect advice or having dubious motivations for being here, in which case it becomes rude and potentially libellous. Consequently, I ask you to remove my post from yours or to otherwise make it clear that you are not questioning my motivations. You can say what you like about my opinions. I don't care and will treat your opinions with the respect and credibility I think they deserve.

 

when it comes to web behaviour, I have seen many instances on many fora where someone who has been around for a bit looks down on newcomers, and generally acts in a way that suggests they believe themselves to be superior in some way and infallible simply because they have more posts.

 

I think on my first day here, I ended up making two complaints about someone with many more posts than you. That person also acted as though he could do and say what he wanted just because he had more posts than me.

 

Today I saw someone with more posts than you, say something factually incorrect. Last week I pointed out to someone again, with more posts than you that I thought he was factually wrong. Being wrong isn't the preserve of members with less posts than you. One of my first threads was about Default Notices and the lack of a genuine known accurate copy. On this site there are 2 versions being quoted. Obviously, at least one was incorrect. Did the people making assertions about the content of DNs want to know about the contradiction? What do you think? I'll keep my assessment of whether he is right or not to my self though.

 

The law evolves and changes. I daresay, a few years ago, the very thought that someone would attempt to claim back bank charges would seem unscrupulous and dishonest or at least less than honourable. To break the conditions of the bank account when you knew the penalty for doing so, and then demand the charges back? The very thought!

 

But many did, and many did it via this site. Maybe you were one of them? Those that did didn't think that agreeing to the terms of the account meant you had to be bound by them it seemed.

 

Fast forward a few years. People have debts quashed because it cannot be established what the terms of that debt were or are. Is that any different from claiming bank charges? Yes, because in the latter the charges were documented and freely available and by not closing the account, it could be argued that you agreed with them. In the former, there is no agreement.

 

At the end of the day, all lenders resort to the law when it suits them. Not one creditor says "sorry Mr Debtor to hear you've lost your job because we screwed up the economy, don't worry about the debt, pay us back when you can." No, they all started using the law, and in many cases, misusing it to get what they wanted, with lies, and threats and intimidation tactics thrown in. I see no moral dilemma in a debtor using the same law against the lenders, and I see no reason to criticise anyone who does. I note you won several cases. What did you do - use the law to your benefit, or beg and plead with them to let you off?

 

In the same way, how would you feel if you disputed a contract or it's fairness, terms etc, only to be told to accept what the other party said. Oh I forgot, you didn't like it so you made Halifax and Cap1 pay up.

 

I have no dispute with you hilliard, except the above link and suggestion that you disapprove of my motives and that I think I am an expert.

 

you don't know my motivations, although I'm sure there is a big overlap between my motivations and everyone else on this site including you, and not once have I ever said anything on this site that comes close to suggesting that I am, or think I am, an expert on these matters. I am expert in some things, and I rightly say some where appropriate, but these things are not included.

 

I think the general tone of what you posted and the quoting of my post requires that you apologise to me.

 

To the original poster, I am sorry your thread is disturbed and that others may be deterred from giving or asking for advice because of his attitide, but there is one thing I don't like and that's some people saying it's ok for them to ask for advice because they're doing it for the right reasons.

i,ve never read a long thread before as they tend to loose the plot in the middle,

i wish some one would spend as much time helping me with my my probs with phoenix /carter court case / set aside pending in next few wks.

common caggers lowlifes are waiting for us. :D

[hillards]

i,ve never read a long thread before

Gets even longer every time someone quotes a big chunk of message like that...

[slick132]

Can we please, from here onwards, keep focussed on assisting the OP with this case.

 

I don't want to have to spend the rest of my Saturday evening removing posts from here to a general discussion thread, after sorting out which useful bits of posts to leave.

 

Thanks.

[fergal71]

hi my point is that I am having great difficulty in firstly finding why there are 3 CRA in this country and their is not one piece of legal argument they have to be there in the first place. In fact their existence is in breach of data protection act... we give permission for companies to share our data.... who give cra's permission. I have over the last few years read on cag about many people challenging CRA's and these people at court stage seem to disappear... my point is that either cra's realise they have no right and pay people off with big silence clauses. uk26, surelybonds, Until I find evidence of CRA's in court defending their actions then my advice will always be to challenge them as they have a great deal more to hide.... sorry for getting personal but I think you have missed my point or have I made it badly....

 

I recommend everybody data subject access request the cra's and then look for legal argument for them all to hold and sell your data.... please when you find any post here thanks!!!