Hi all, Just received a email from qq about how they sold the loan i owe to Gothia after no payment was made after a Default Notice was sent. Well i never received a defaulft notice to my knowledge as i thought i was getting nearer to a 3 month repayment plan. What are Gothia like to deal with????

Any help would be appreciated

Gothia are okay, but you MJUST remember with this type of loan you CANNOT use the default notice and termination notice route - these loans are not covered by the same rules due to the onerous nature of the interest rates and default fees.

Get Gothia to drop any default fees added and work in the basis of the loan amount borrowed plus one months interest fee.

You are dealing with a very grey area of the law here and as said previously you CANNOT go down the same route as a credit card or bank charge route takes you.

Why not? If it is a regulated agreement under the CCA then the OP has the full protection of the Act and the OC has to comply with such legislation.

I might also add that it is more than likely to be a regulated agreement considering that it is a QQ account.

Sadly payday loans come outside the regulated agreement rules, Quick Quid in particular is operated via Cashnetusa and are therefore 'not applicable to an American based company' (MBNA tactics.....). Some agreements are regulated but the majority are better dealt with by using the unfair terms and conditions.

These companies think nothing of 'raiding' somebody's bank account at will should you not pay up... and continue to do so beyond reason. We have cases here of £150 loans being turned into £1200. I have successfully challenged several companies now on behalf of Caggers and don't even go down the default route - I think this is now a red herring and a 'red flag' to some judges since the Rankine debacle.

I'm not sure how this has become the prevailing opinion. All QQ credit agreements state:

FIXED-SUM LOAN AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

 

1. PARTIES TO AGREEMENT

 

CashEuroNet UK, LLC

A company incorporated in Delaware in the United States of America

Communications House

26 York Street

London, W1U 6PZ

They are bound by the CCA, the OFT, Trading Standards, all regulations governed by English Law.

Whilst they state that they do not recognise it.... it is just there as 'dressing' as are all their other terms and conditions. I've been dealing with the payday loans on this site for some time now and they operate the same way as a mobile phone contract.

If you look at the number of successes I have had with the 'statement defence' you will see that they have no room to use their terms and conditions other than as penalties, and that their pocs often are fatally flawed and that alone is enough for a short defence to kill the claim.

Read the Tower Capital threads to see how flawed their POCs are.

I am not going to argue the point with you on the forum. We are entitled to our opinions and experience and in this case it is experience which has been winning these cases... experience learnt from other failed cases where they start with the default notice issues. The POCs are often vague and misleading and quote the wrong amount, wrong interest rate and wrong names..

I restate, they are bound by the regulations whether they follow them or not.

We need to stick to the facts wherever possible.

Which exactly is what the defences I have had considerable success with have done, we have started with the POCs (which have always been very bald and flawed) and had companies run away, be asked to redraft POCs (when they have discontinued the claim) and cave in during mediation, not wanting to discuss the interest rate issue with a judge - do not forget with this type of loan the interest rate alone is enough to hang the company in a courtroom.

I'm not so sure. I suspect part of the problem is jurisdiction with payday loan cases; it's simply a new form of loan sharking dressed up in websites and flashy adverts. We never hear of the cases where these companies win in court. We won't hear of the ones where they have lost either because I believe that they simply do not exist.

If anyone can point me to a case where they have won in court I'd like to see it.

I helped won a case for one of the CAGGERS in court, but the site is forbidden to give the details, desipte the fact that the other side mentioned he was using the internet to AVOID paying, we used the thread as evidence to the contrary, look up Skyblue2007 and you will see the details.

I do heartily agree that it is loansharking dressed up to look 'legal'. If you google you will see a lot of these companies are based offshore, do not have physical offices (most use registered offices in London to hide their real whereabouts) and when you start searching Companies House the whole story becomes even more muddied.....

I helped won a case for one of the CAGGERS in court, but the site is forbidden to give the details, desipte the fact that the other side mentioned he was using the internet to AVOID paying, we used the thread as evidence to the contrary, look up Skyblue2007 and you will see the details.

Why is the site forbidden to document the case?

I'll have a look at the thread, thanks.

I do heartily agree that it is loansharking dressed up to look 'legal'. If you google you will see a lot of these companies are based offshore, do not have physical offices (most use registered offices in London to hide their real whereabouts) and when you start searching Companies House the whole story becomes even more muddied.....

Absolutely. I suspect that jurisdiction with these companies is going to become more relevant.

I've been approached by a client with an APR quoted at 165,040.2% for a payday loan. I couldn't quite catch my breath.

I cannot find Skyblue2007

Cheers for responses guys