Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It you had E7 in the past but have converted to single rate then the meter will still hold the last recorded Night readings. This introduces scope for error when manually reading. If the meter has only ever been used on single rate then there's only one figure that can be taken. For example ours shows "Rate 1" reading and a "Total import" reading, but they both give the sme figure. If it has ever been on E7 the total will be higher, including the retained night reading.
    • okay, perfect and thank you so much for the help once again. so firstly i am going to initiate the breathing space, during this time it's likely ill receive a default. when i receive the default are you aware of how long it will take for me to know whether the OC have sold it off to DCAs? Once it's with the DCAs i do not need to worry as they cannot issue a CCJ only the OCs can Even if i decide to come an arrangement with the DCAs no point as the default will remain for 6 years paid or not paid I should only consider repayment if the OC still won the debt and then issue a CCJ? Just to confirm the default will not be seen after 6 years? No one can tell I had one then after 6 years ill be all good?
    • I'm not sure we were on standard tariffs - I've uploaded as many proofs as I can for the ombudsman - ovo called last night uping the compensation to 100 from 50 pounds for the slip in customer service however they won't acknowledge the the problem them not acknowledging a fault has caused nor are they willing to remedy anything as they won't accept the meter or formula was wrong.   I'd appreciate more details on the economy 7 approach and I'll update the ombudsman with any information you can share. 
    • To re-iterate and highlight my urgent question on this one: The N24 from the court did not include any instructions to submit paperwork 28 days before the date, unlike the N157 received for other smaller claims. Do I have to submit a WS for this court date? Link has!...
    • No, reading the guidance online it says to wait for a letter from the court. Should I wait or submit the directions? BTW, I assume that the directions are a longer version of the particular of claim accompanied by evidence, correct?
  • 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

Lowell and Provi doorstep loan CCA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2082 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

looks like they are trying the ppi miss sold one but this is neither

this is irresponsible lending

 

I have e mail FOS saying this was irresponsible lending and have stated that they will not consider it and I think FOS are interested in this claim

due to the ongoing issue with provi

we will wait to see what FOS comes up with

 

thanks DX

 

Thank you for your email to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

 

I understand that you are looking to make a complaint to Provident about irresponsible lending and the firm have rejected this on the basis that it is more than six years ago. You want to understand if the six years is from inception or six years after the last payment was made.

 

FCA Rules

DISP 1.8 Complaints time barring rule

If a respondent receives a complaint which is outside the time limits for referral to the Financial Ombudsman Service it may reject the complaint without considering the merits, but must explain this to the complainant in a final response in accordance with DISP 1.6.2R.

 

The complaints handling rules set time limits for consumers to refer complaints to the Ombudsman. After these time limits have expired, the Ombudsman will need the firms consent to look into a complaint.

 

Generally, these time limits are:

 

  • six months from the business sending the consumer a final response; and
  • six years from the event the consumer is complaining about (or three years from when the consumer knew, or could reasonably have known, they had cause to complaint).

Accordingly the rules do not specify whether the period begins from inception or from the date of the last payment as you are asking, rather from when you knew or could have reasonably known. If you are complaining about mis-selling then the mis-selling would have occurred at the beginning of the term of the contract and not at the date of the last payment.

 

I hope this information has been helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

well I don't think the irresponsible lending stuff that we saw against PDLs was even around 3yrs ago?

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

id wait

the FOS will pick up on things like that I'm sure

we've not seen the FOS ever mention statute barring toward any IRL claims to date

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

from FOS

Hi

 

As the firm will not accept a complaint from you on this matter then the Financial Ombudsman Service will not have jurisdiction to take a complaint from you.

 

That would leave you with seeking out your own independent legal advice on this matter.

 

 

The Citizens Advice Bureau provide some legal guidance and may be able to provide you with some guidance on your next steps legally.

 

can Andy englighten us on this one???

Link to post
Share on other sites

you've already outlined it in post 76

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Good moving fwd.

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...

Reply from fos

provi wont let fos look at the loans as it is over 6 years and they dont keep documents for longer than 6 years

 

however, told fos that provi have supplied me with accounts which span for 9 years

and that also they shouldn't need to talk to their agent regarding my credit search as they should have done this themselves

 

fos came back stating that they will look at the paperwork again and contact provi

 

Might not get me anything but its another official complaint against provi

 

when they wont want anymore

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

e mail from FOS investigator he is now in receipt of my files and will investigate further

 

however from lowlife asking if i was willing to make an early reduced payment this letter is now in the drawer

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

update from FOS

they have sent me a letter stating that they have had so many people who are quoting the 3 year period that they are looking at cases to see if

the arguments are justified in following the complaint

 

its just a matter of waiting

however if they do pass that they must pay then this will open the flood gate for so many people who have been treated wrongly

thanks

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes a little dicky bird told me the FOS/FCA are seriously looking at this mis-interpretation of the CCL 3 yrs stuff

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...