Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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
      • 161 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

Toothfairy loan book sold to Loads of Dosh for 7.5% of book value


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3702 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

Guys

 

Check this out below;

 

A collapsed payday lender was owed £10.8m by customers before its insolvency but less than £1m of that is expected to be recovered, new documents have revealed.

 

 

 

Web Loans Processing, which traded as Toothfairy Finance, went into administration in December 2013 with a loan book valued at £10.8m, according to administrators Harris Lipman.

A company called Loads of Dosh Limited has since bought the company’s assets for £30,000, of which £4,998 is for “equipment” while the remaining £25,000 is for the loan book, which also has a deferred consideration of 55% of gross recoveries on the debts owed.

 

The administrators estimate that consideration to be worth £797,500, which places a total estimated value of £822,500 on the loan book, equivalent to just 7.5% of the outstanding loans.

 

Harris Lipman’s deferred consideration estimate is based on a separate claim by one of the firm’s directors that up to £1.45m of the loan book is potentially recoverable.

 

Joint administrators Freddy Khalastchi and Martin Atkins said in a statement: “On the basis of total collections in the region of £1.45m, the deferred consideration has a value of £797,500. The actual value of the deferred consideration will depend upon the level of collections which can be achieved by Loads of Dosh Limited.”

 

The administrator’s statement said the company’s problems surfaced in September 2013 after several unnamed investors served notice to recover loans they had made to the company.

 

Despite this, the business went on to receive two bridging loans of £250,000 each in October 2013 from Rosemount Investments Limited and Gullfoss Properties Limited, which were secured by fixed and floating charges on the business while due diligence was carried out.

 

However, the company soon fell into a position where it could not pay its debts and while one unidentified debenture holder was repaid most of its funds, the other was repaid only a fraction as the directors gave notice of their intention to appoint administrators.

 

In the meantime, according to the administrator’s proposals, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) had expressed concerns about some of the company’s trading practices.

 

Harris Lipman said the regulator’s concerns related primarily to the fitness of the business and two associated companies, Northern Debt Recoveries Limited and Marshall Hoares Bailiffs Limited, to hold a consumer credit licence.

 

The OFT also expressed a belief that some company staff had denied access to all the company’s records, and voiced concerns about the way an Israeli subsidiary of the business, Transco, was helping to collect the company’s debts as it was not based in the UK and did not have a consumer credit licence.

 

Web Loans Processing and Northern Debt Recoveries Limited shared two directors, Gary Chapple and Oliver Larholt, both of whom have been terminated as directors according to Companies House.

 

Chapple was also previously a director of Marshall Hoares Bailiffs Limited and remains listed as an “individual that runs the organisation” on the consumer credit licence files of two other consumer credit businesses: Iceland Finance Limited and Tune Tribe Finance Limited.

 

Even though the assets of Web Loans Processing have now been sold, the charges held by the bridging loan providers have not been settled.

 

But David Kirk, director at insolvency practitioner firm Kirks, explained: “You need sanction from a charge holder to sell but they cannot refuse that consent unless they think something odd is going on.

 

“As there is deferred consideration, maybe the charge holders may in fact be paid off by those later instalments. I suspect they both consented to the sale.”

 

Credit Today has tried to contact Harris Lipman and Gullfoss Properties Limited for comment, and is happy to update this story should either party decide to contribute.

 

 

This truly goes to show the shady dealings that company had... I think this should be a lesson for us all.

To see a company like this go under is truly a good thing! I also like how it mentions about NDR and MHB being fit about holding Credit Licenses ^__^

 

What id like to know is how they define the loan book as "Potentially Recoverable"

 

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

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Excellent find.

 

Now loads of dosh now have the accounts and based on the 7.5% maximum payout for them, I suggest that when ex toothfairy clients get chased by LoD they offer10% as a F&F. 2.5% profit isn't bad.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent find.

 

Now loads of dosh now have the accounts and based on the 7.5% maximum payout for them, I suggest that when ex toothfairy clients get chased by LoD they offer10% as a F&F. 2.5% profit isn't bad.

 

Funnily enough back in 2010 i set up a Google Alert hence why it found it :)

Silver... while we dont condole debt avoidance, im thinking we should teach them a lesson by not paying at all ^__^

 

But on a more realistic note... I agree :) ,. But as per normal DCA procedures... these will attempt to ramp it up.

 

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

Was reading the above report on the Credit Today website.

 

The Company Loads of Dosh Ltd has changed it's name according to Companies House.

 

New name is DHR Capital Ltd.

 

http://data.companieshouse.gov.uk/doc/company/08221115

 

Stigman

NEVER telephone a DCA

If a DCA rings you, refuse to go through the security questions & hang up!

 

If I have helped you, click on the star & say thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone ever needs to write to them

 

MR JUSTIN BANNERMAN-LLOYD

 

44 BAKER STREET

3RD FLOOR

LONDON

UNITED KINGDOM

W1U 7AL

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a comment in one of my posts in 2012 regarding another of Larholts companies,The London Treasury Services,29 the Rise,Elstree.There is a James Larholt who is a director.

In the above post which is an extract from Credit Today,there is mention of an Israeli connection.With a bit of searching around,I have found the following.......

 

At the same address,there is a charitable organisation called Friends Of Schneider Childrens Medical Centre.Who should be the treasure,a Mr James Larholt.

 

https://www.friendsofschneider.org.il/?CategoryID=252&dbsRW=1

 

Also at the same address,there is another charitable organisation called Emek Medical Centre,who should be the honorary treasurer,no other than a Mr James Larholt.

 

http://hospitals.clalit.co.il/hospitals/emek/en-us/Newsletters/PublishingImages/Newsletter%20complete.pdf

 

The Merephdi Foundation mailing address: (to the attention of Mr. James Larholt)

29 The Rise. Elstree, Herts. WD6 3JR, England

 

How up to date the records are,I do not know.I am not suggesting that these organisations have had anything to do with Toothfairy,but it just shows that the Larholt family have got lots of fingers in various pies.

 

Regards,John.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article hidden in Credit Today

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/16438/online-news/insolvent-payday-lender-faces-loan-book-deficit

 

I wonder how much of the 10 million quoted are their over inflated fees, charges and those 'attempted debit fees' per hour per day.... take that lot out and you might get a truer picture of the alleged debt.

 

I very much doubt they will get £1 million back from their customers either.... false representation comes to mind here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great find! Loads of Dosh is nothing more than the real owners behind web loans. Larholt was a scapegoat for Per Gullestrup. He's a billionnaire shipping mogul. Larholt married his daughter but got kicked out when they separated last year. They probably transferred everything to this new setup to avoid detection and OFT questions on his involvement. Anyone knows if toothfairy/WLP still hold their license?

Link to post
Share on other sites

WLP (WebLoans Processing) is/was the registered company with the trading name of Toothfairy (amongst many others)and they are in administration. In 2012 they were at risk of losing their licence but somehow managed to wriggle out of it.

 

Still, things come to those that wait. :lol:

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt they will get £1 million back from their customers either.... false representation comes to mind here.

 

They have repeatedly admitted in phone calls and emails that the new company chasing the fantasy debts is actually the same old company. Evidence of which has of course been forwarded to all relevant authorities.

 

So they may well soon have to face the consequences brought on to them by the various regulators and law enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have repeatedly admitted in phone calls and emails that the new company chasing the fantasy debts is actually the same old company. Evidence of which has of course been forwarded to all relevant authorities.

 

So they may well soon have to face the consequences brought on to them by the various regulators and law enforcement.

 

If you have those emails, can you post them up (suitably redacted of course)

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've havent had anyone been in touch yet claiming to have bought my account , I did have a repayment plan with web loans processing should I just be keeping my payments aside for now untill someone gets in touch? Having read through the forum of the recent toothfairy administration, I can't understand how the same idiots are still managing to trade under yet another different name it's ridiculous how they can get away with it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took my case to the OFT and Financial Ombudsman about TF and actually posted the carry ons on here, so i would love to think my complaints had a small contribution to their downfall! :-D

 

After having the FO contact TF my debt to them was dramatically reduced and i owe nothing more than £76 so im thinking do i repay that to this Loads of Tosh company or not? Anyone else continuing to repay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations TF-Destroyer, shows that complaining in the right way DOES work, and that all the fees, charges and interest are not really acceptable.

 

I would re-contact the FO and ask for their advice, they may now be able to get the £76 to the right company, or written off altogether.

 

Just shows that the business models used by this company actively encouraged defaults and rollover fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have those emails, can you post them up (suitably redacted of course)

 

I received email last week as follows:

 

Dear xxxxxx

 

As you would have seen from our recent contact, the loan book containing the loan you took out with ToothFairy Finance was assigned to DHR Capital Limited.

 

We have reviewed your account and have substantially reduced your outstanding balance by removing all collection fees and lowering your interest charges. You will not be asked to pay more than 2.5 times what you originally borrowed (this is equal to no more than 20 weeks interest). Any payments already made will count towards this maximum repayment amount.

 

We are able to offer further reductions on the amount you owe if you are able to fully settle your outstanding balance within 6 months.

 

If you have any questions, please contact our collection agents at 0203 476 4029.

 

Yours sincerely,

DHR Capital Limited

 

Blackwater UK Limited (Consumer Credit Licence Number 633023) have been instructed as collection agents by DHR Capital Limited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get the email over to the OFT pronto - 2 1/2 times the amount you borrowed - OUTRAGEOUS. Okay they do say they can offer further discounts if you pay over 6 months - but that is still not taking into account the individual circumstances of the borrower.

 

These loans already come 'front loaded' from an interest viewpoint so should not attract any other fees, charges etc (IMHO - unfortunately the law differs slightly).

 

They are definately having a laugh here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get the email over to the OFT pronto - 2 1/2 times the amount you borrowed - OUTRAGEOUS. Okay they do say they can offer further discounts if you pay over 6 months - but that is still not taking into account the individual circumstances of the borrower.

 

These loans already come 'front loaded' from an interest viewpoint so should not attract any other fees, charges etc (IMHO - unfortunately the law differs slightly).

 

They are definately having a laugh here.

 

 

Thanks guys for your advice. Had no address details so done a bit of digging around. Apparently the phone number is for Blackwater UK (DC for DHR) have rung them for their address so I can write asking for proof that debt has been assigned to thema and details of the loan. Low and behold their address is a PO Box in Rotherham. Cant email them back as the email is a "no reply" email.:| Somethings is not quite right again here alarm bells are ringing! I willl write to them and keep you updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i would ignore it for now until something solid comes in the regular mail.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

How can we find out who rosemount investments and gullfoss properties are? they lent money to webloans just before the administration so they must be related to the true owners. If what david kirk said here is true, then they had to approve the sale of our loans so in a way they kept control of who buys the loans. We need to see if there is a relationship between them and dhr. How can we find out? If what the phone specialist was saying is true, than it could be that they are all linked to per Gullestrup family. It could all be a fantasy, but if it is all true then we need to fight against these people. Anyone here can help us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to do a lot of search to find out what happened. I may be wrong but I believe what the person said on the phone: it is all the Per Gullestrup family organizing the collapse of webloans to move it into a new company. We know from the administrators that rosemount investment and gullfoss properties controled the sale of the loans to dhr. david kirk is also quoted here saying the same.

LOOK AT WHAT I JUST FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-packaged_insolvency

This is a very interesting article!!!!!

I think if we can link dhr, gullfoss, rosemount and per gullestrup then may be we can have confirmation that webloans is not dead, it is just the same under a different name. It may all be not true, but if it is we need to know and expose them. How can we find out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edmond.

Thank you for spoiling my Sunday night.As curiosity got the better of me and I have been doing a bit of searching,but not much luck at the moment.There are several companies that could match the above,not only here,but in the Isle Of Man.But you have to be careful what you say before you have the facts in front of you.

One thing that I did find strange,is that Gullfoss is a part of Iceland (a waterfall).Now,Gary Chapple was a director of a company called Iceland Finance Limited.A strange coincidence.

I will have to delve further.

 

Regards,John.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edmond.

Thank you for spoiling my Sunday night.As curiosity got the better of me and I have been doing a bit of searching,but not much luck at the moment.There are several companies that could match the above,not only here,but in the Isle Of Man.But you have to be careful what you say before you have the facts in front of you.

One thing that I did find strange,is that Gullfoss is a part of Iceland (a waterfall).Now,Gary Chapple was a director of a company called Iceland Finance Limited.A strange coincidence.

I will have to delve further.

 

Regards,John.

 

I want to be clear that I am not saying anything! I think that if the owners of webloans (being per gullestrup family or any other theory) are trying to pull a trick after how much they charged us, then we should all help each other trying to make sure we understand what is truly happening. It may all be conspiracy theory but we have a duty to investigate

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...