This might be slightly off topic, but I've just let Disney know about "Jedi Loans", seeing as they're using trademarks, likenesses and IP that's property of Disney now. Disney are quite protective of what they own and like to make legal threats that they WILL carry out. Let's see how a PDL likes being on the sharp end for a change and hopefully harrassed.

This might be slightly off topic, but I've just let Disney know about "Jedi Loans", seeing as they're using trademarks, likenesses and IP that's property of Disney now. Disney are quite protective of what they own and like to make legal threats that they WILL carry out. Let's see how a PDL likes being on the sharp end for a change and hopefully harrassed.

that wld be interesting

that 'man' on their site does look like obi! maybe they want to 'force' payments from people

that wld be interesting

that 'man' on their site does look like obi! maybe they want to 'force' payments from people

I personally think they should be called Sith Loans as they've obviously given themselves to the dark side lol. Anyway, last post I'll make on this seeing as I don't want to hijack the thread, but I've had a confirmation e-mail from Disney saying that they've received my e-mail and they'll investigate it. Unfortunately they don't reveal nor correspond with sources (not that I'm bothered if they did and I'm on record publicly now as dobbing them in) so I guess I'll just keep an eye on their site and see what happens. I know Disney can be very aggressive and take domains over etc, so if they suddenly disappear that may be why.

It just goes to show that they have a very poor grasp of the law anyway as any idiot would know you don't go using the IP and likenesses of others without permission. I'm surprised their in house 'solicitors' haven't mentioned it before now.

I personally think they should be called Sith Loans as they've obviously given themselves to the dark side lol. Anyway, last post I'll make on this seeing as I don't want to hijack the thread, but I've had a confirmation e-mail from Disney saying that they've received my e-mail and they'll investigate it. Unfortunately they don't reveal nor correspond with sources (not that I'm bothered if they did and I'm on record publicly now as dobbing them in) so I guess I'll just keep an eye on their site and see what happens. I know Disney can be very aggressive and take domains over etc, so if they suddenly disappear that may be why.

 

It just goes to show that they have a very poor grasp of the law anyway as any idiot would know you don't go using the IP and likenesses of others without permission. I'm surprised their in house 'solicitors' haven't mentioned it before now.

jedi loans, under scott richardson ltd. scott previous co. name; injury advice bureau.

co no. same as loanz365. same address.

fingers in the same 'sith' pies

beware

Just letting you know that Merrywood have refunded me with £939 yesterday evening!!!! Keep at them guys and good luck

Just letting you know that Merrywood have refunded me with £939 yesterday evening!!!! Keep at them guys and good luck

Wow!! That's a huge amount, really happy for you . Unlucky Merrywood

Just letting you know that Merrywood have refunded me with £939 yesterday evening!!!! Keep at them guys and good luck

well done

(ha, my prev last posts here went awol into another thread)

you mentioned #20 use of s155 Con Credit Act

for ref;

155 Right to recover brokerage fees.

(1)[F1Subject to subsection (2A),]the excess over [F2£5] of a fee or commission for his services charged by a credit-broker to an individual to whom this subsection applies shall cease to be payable or, as the case may be, shall be recoverable by the individual if the introduction does not result in his entering into a relevant agreement within the six months following the introduction (disregarding any agreement which is cancelled under section 69(1) or becomes subject to section 69(2)).

(2)Subsection (1) applies to an individual who sought an introduction for a purpose which would have been fulfilled by his entry into—

(a)a regulated agreement, or

(b)in the case of an individual such as is referrred to in section 145(2)(a)(ii), an agreement for credit secured on land, or

©an agreement such as is referred to in section 145(3)(b) or © or (4)(b).

[F3(2A)But subsection (1) does not apply where—

(a)the fee or commission relates to the effecting of an introduction of a kind mentioned in section 146(5A); and

(b)the person charging that fee or commission is an authorised person or an appointed representative, within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.]

(3)An agreement is a relevant agreement for the purposes of subsection (1) in relation to an individual if it is an agreement such as is referred to in subsection (2) in relation to that individual.

(4)In the case of an individual desiring to obtain credit under a consumer credit agreement, any sum payable or paid by him to a credit-broker otherwise than as a fee or commission for the credit-broker’s services shall for the purposes of subsection (1) be treated as such a fee or commission if it enters, or would enter, into the total charge for credit.'

legislation.gov.uk

some more recent news

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?435600-Payday-Brokers-raid-bank-accounts%284-Viewing%29-nbsp

well done

 

(ha, my prev posts here went awol)

 

you mentioned using s155 Con Credit Act

 

for ref;

 

155 Right to recover brokerage fees.

 

(1)[F1Subject to subsection (2A),]the excess over [F2£5] of a fee or commission for his services charged by a credit-broker to an individual to whom this subsection applies shall cease to be payable or, as the case may be, shall be recoverable by the individual if the introduction does not result in his entering into a relevant agreement within the six months following the introduction (disregarding any agreement which is cancelled under section 69(1) or becomes subject to section 69(2)).

 

(2)Subsection (1) applies to an individual who sought an introduction for a purpose which would have been fulfilled by his entry into—

 

(a)a regulated agreement, or

 

(b)in the case of an individual such as is referrred to in section 145(2)(a)(ii), an agreement for credit secured on land, or

 

©an agreement such as is referred to in section 145(3)(b) or © or (4)(b).

 

[F3(2A)But subsection (1) does not apply where—

 

(a)the fee or commission relates to the effecting of an introduction of a kind mentioned in section 146(5A); and

 

(b)the person charging that fee or commission is an authorised person or an appointed representative, within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.]

 

(3)An agreement is a relevant agreement for the purposes of subsection (1) in relation to an individual if it is an agreement such as is referred to in subsection (2) in relation to that individual.

 

(4)In the case of an individual desiring to obtain credit under a consumer credit agreement, any sum payable or paid by him to a credit-broker otherwise than as a fee or commission for the credit-broker’s services shall for the purposes of subsection (1) be treated as such a fee or commission if it enters, or would enter, into the total charge for credit.'

 

legislation.gov.uk

 

 

some more recent news

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?435600-Payday-Brokers-raid-bank-accounts%284-Viewing%29-nbsp

NatWest is lobbying to get this stopped I'm told.