Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

CFO lending refusing to honour agreement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2547 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

PDL company admitted fault in final response offered compensation which was accepted and a date by which it would be paid was agreed. That date has come and gone and the PDL company now say they are to busy with claims to pay up and don't know when they will pay the money.

 

Is the agreement you already have with them as legally binding as it would be had they been directed to pay by the Ombudsman. It seems this is the latest from CFO lending and there are multiple reports of them doing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is binding.

 

 

by the way, please would you post up the letter in PDF format and also tell who the PDL is.

Ta

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is binding - although I would like to see the PDF.

Not only is it most likely to be binding, if they have broken the agreement, they have given you an opportunity to renegotiuate and to insist on more money.

 

Let us know what it is all about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what was received from them. I'm guessing as it was signed it is binding.

 

(By email only)

Telephone:0208 045 1382

Monday-Friday: 9am-5pm

Email: [email protected]

26th January 2017

Agreement Number *******

Dear ******

Thank you for your confirmation email which has been received on **th January 2017.

We can confirm the refund for the sum of £****** with 8% interest up to the date of payment as a full and final

settlement to this complaint and all further claims with CFO Lending will now be passed over to our accounts

department to be processed.

Please be advised all refunds have a cut-off point at 2pm and funds are sent at 4:30 Monday - Friday. All refunds are

processed and will appear in your bank account within 6-8 weeks from the date of receiving acceptance. As explained

in my final response letter, the £**** part of the FCA redress will be paid to you separately in due course.

CFO has deducted tax from the interest due to you at the basic rate of 20% as it is our understanding that we are

required by HMRC to do this. However, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have paid the correct amount of

tax. If you are not liable for tax at all, you can claim the tax we have deducted from HMRC. If you are liable for tax at

the higher rate, you are responsible for telling HMRC and for paying any additional amount of tax due. Should you

have any queries with this, we suggest you contact your local HMRC department

We will now consider your complaint to be closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please monitor this thread for a fuller reply later.

However it would be helpful to know more details of the loan, if you had any difficulties, incurred charges etc. When did you take it out etc.

How was their repayment figure calculated.

By the way the letter is not an admission of liability. It is merely a settlement letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

A complaint was made to CFO and the complaint was upheld by CFO in their final response letter. So there is no liability issue. The issue is they agreed to pay within 8 weeks and the 8 weeks are up and they have not paid and say they do not know when they will pay as they are so busy processing other claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this. If there is a final response letter where they actually admit liability then I'd be very grateful if you could put it up here.

 

The whole thing is that you could enforce the agreement by beginning a county court action. But if you're going to go to that kind of trouble then it would be well worth checking to see whether in fact they have done a quick calculation and that all your losses have been addressed before you go to the time and trouble of taking the matter to court.

 

It might be that they have shortchanged or it might be that you haven't presented your losses adequately.

 

If they have actually upheld your complaint – rather than simply offered you a settlement which is effectively really just an agreement to shut you up, then it would make a claim even easier than it already will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry to bring this up a week later, but did this ever go to the FOS?

If so, and it was sent to an Ombudsman, the ruling would then be legally binding, but for now, it just looks like a resolution to an irresponsible lending claim.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also cfo. They've already been reprimanded by the fsa

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to bring this up a week later, but did this ever go to the FOS?

If so, and it was sent to an Ombudsman, the ruling would then be legally binding, but for now, it just looks like a resolution to an irresponsible lending claim.

From what I understand you cannot go to the FOS before getting a final response from a company. As the complaint was upheld by the company there was again no reason to go to the FOS. With the company clearly not willing to honour the agreement it has now gone to the FOS. However you cannot be made to pay what you do not have and I believe they will somehow run out of money before they pay up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CFO lending are in administration, doubt anyone's getting any redress. Told me I'd get some but been told by the administrators we won't get a penny.

 

As you can see from my post yesterday I was fully expecting this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - when i contacted them they said they had until the 31st March 17 to let people know - 6 days later they file..... - how utterly odd. The optics of that are that they waited, waited and then went down the admin/insolvency route. Unlikely the monies were ever there to redress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...