Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Welcome secured loans/charge - sold to Alpha/Prime -repo received - ***Claim Dismissed***


cruzhughes
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1695 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

Both automated letters

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

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Like Wasting paper don’t they? Still adding fees after my refusing visits. I’m patiently waiting their next move. Whatever that maybe?

 

Can’t believe my original complaint in March has not been taken in to account

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Very interesting letter from prime.

 

What’s your verdict dx?? I’ve had a quick read through.

 

Have a look at the deed of variation paragraph. They say the loan account started in 2006 and completed in 2008. Wasn’t there 3 loans in between?

 

They have not included copy of title which they say they have in letter.

 

Will inbox you up to date statement now.

 

Doubt you need to see copy of income and expenditure they’ve sent out.

Prime 10th Oct.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you had already sent them an income and expenditure sheet ?

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell them to look at that then - or send them a copy advising they should have already read it !

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and they are still trying to fleece you blind on a debt you don't owe because the original creditor wont sort it out, they think you'll be a good boy and cough up.

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

well they are laughing at you welcome know its irresponsible lending but because of their waiver they can say tough luck mate and sell it on.

 

well if they can sell the debt on then prime inherit all the rights

 

fire them ofl an irresponsible lending claim..

 

..in their name that way you get a second bite of the same cherry under the FOS/FCA etc too?

 

how can the statement jump from 2009 to 2016 wheres the rest?

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

Didn’t I do that in my original letter to prime?

 

If not how do I compose this next letter?

 

What do you think of the deed of variation paragraph

 

how can the statement jump from 2009 to 2016 wheres the rest?

 

I didn’t send you rest as you’ve already had them before with the repo claim only last 2 pages are different.

 

I can send you the lot if you want

 

How’s this draft?

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter on 10/10/2017 the contents of which have been noted.

 

I write to you again outlining the full background of the above said loan.

In prior correspondence from yourselves you are adamant that you have been assigned the debt in the correct manner. So this in its entirety means that you have inherited all the rights to this loan within the deed of variation.

So therefore you must be held responsible for the irresponsible lending which makes up this loan that you now own.

The background is

On 11/10/2001 I took out a loan for £7369.39 which had £1473.22 PPI and £130.00 Medicare added to it

 

On 10/06/2003 this was rewritten to for £9809.68 and £1804.68 PPI.

 

On 31/03/2005 this was rewritten to for £11423.67 and £1108.79 MIF.

 

On 14/07/2005 this was rewritten to for £13886.71 and £1352.87 MIF.

 

On 29/12/2005 this was rewritten to for £14792.00 and £1442.59 MIF

 

On 31/10/2006 a new loan was taken out for £8019.62 which had £1485.75 PPI, £180 life-care and £125 homecare with £2768.59 interest added to it.

 

On 03/04/2007 this was rewritten to for £14602.15 which had £2425.15 PPI and £175 personal accident plan with £3339.03 interest added.

 

On 05/10/2007 this was rewritten to for £26741.20 which had £4506.20 PPI and £10342.54 in interest added to it.

 

On 30/08/2008 this was rewritten to for £30514.32

 

All of the above were forced upon me.

 

I feel it was very irresponsible to be constantly refinancing these loans [9 times - some no more than 4 months apart] on the basis they were more affordable

when each loan was already in arrears with numerous additional penalty charges already levied.

 

I politely request that you accept the £7,888.39 you have already received from Welcome Finance without checking the full history of the above loan. This money has come from part of a penalty reclaim with them. I request that as a full and final settlement remove the legal charge you hold and null any remaining outstanding balances as you are already in receipt of the money above.

 

So thus coming to a simple resolution for both parties, without the need for extensive involvement of the FOS/FCA/ICO etc nor further court cases.

 

Shall I even add that on 31/10/2006 this loan was sercured. But the following loans in 2007 and 2008 were unsecured. As we know they didn’t file the correct paperwork at LR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

PPI wasn't it

and no I wouldn't

 

doesn't the fact the charge is there from the first day run through all the refinancing..

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

Yes it was PPI.

First loan 2001

the first Sercured was 31/3/2005. Totally settled in Feb 2006. The new loan taken out Oct 2006.. then further loans nothing lodged with LR.

 

How do I get the point across correctly to them.

 

Just thinking to shall I mention that loan was reduced to 0% in April 2015 after I put account in dispute with Welcome.

 

Going on primes monthly repayment that would mean they are charging interest on this loan there is £18,040.83 remaining.

 

They are saying that the monthly repayments are £231.49 and that 197 months were remaining in March so that leaves amount repayable of £45,603.53. Aug 2033 this loan is due to run until

 

The balance was £26,152.32 when they purchased then issued court proceedings.

 

PPI Refund was £7,888.39 and £274.90 extra interest added totals £8,163.29

 

That should be £17,989.03 left in my book

 

And 15 years and 9 months left now not forgetting the payments missed.

 

From now 189 months remaining at £231.49 total repayable £43,751.61.

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't need to register multiple charges....

 

the bottom line is they haven't a clue what they are doing

where are the missing statements...re post 819

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

I’ve sent you the full statement now that was enclosed in letter post 812. They didn’t leave them out it was my bad i didn’t think you’d need those only the updated pages.

 

Have you had amended Letter I’ve composed? Does it need tweaking or editing. Not sure if I’m on the right track here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole of the debt regarding agreement number xxxxxxxxxx consists of irresponsible lending

you as the rights holder are now tasked to investigate this independently of any previous finding by welcome.

 

I refuse to pay a debt that does not exist as its all IR and or PPIetcetc

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

well no whack it in somewhere.

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

  • 1 month later...

post the letters to thread now please suitably redacted

 

off to the FOS then in regard to prime refusing to investigate the IRL claim?

or have we already done that....:noidea::noidea:

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...