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

Battle with Quick Quid over irresponsible lending


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2356 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

Hello all,

they have never provided me with full list of loans ( i think I had more than 15 with them) here is their final word...

 

QuickQuid Customer ID: xxxxxxxxxx

 

We are in receipt of your complaint dated 16/08/2017 where you allege that QuickQuid irresponsibly lent to you.

 

Specifically, you mention:

• The loans were unaffordable

• You were dependent on short term lending

 

I’ve investigated your complaint and would like to bring your attention to the following points:

Under the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules, complaints cannot be made where they concern an event that occurred more than six years ago.

Of course, we will still investigate your allegations as they pertain to any loans you have received in the last six years.

 

AFFORDABILITY

In your complaint you allege that QuickQuid did not perform a credit check or affordability assessment.

We have reviewed your file and can confirm that,

in line with our internal process,

at the time of each application,

we conducted our standard credit assessment,

which included pulling your credit report.

 

As part of our assessment,

we analyse your current financial commitments,

insolvency records,

delinquency records,

County Court judgements,

credit enquiries and

other credit accounts currently open.

 

Lenders are required to make an assessment that is proportionate to the type and amount of the loan as well as the associated costs and risk to the borrower.

 

It would not be proportionate for a lender which provides small loans,

which are unsecured and

which do not require a guarantor,

to conduct the same assessment as a bank which provides high loan amounts which are secured by your home or vehicle.

 

Your loans were unsecured.

We did not provide a guarantor loan where you would have needed to have had someone else share the responsibility of repayment .

 

Your credit report is not the only thing we analyse when we make a lending decision.

We also look at the information you provide us in your application,

as well as your loan history with us when we decide to approve or decline your loan application.

 

This information is all input into our internal credit model which is run to obtain your credit model score.

If your credit model score does not meet the minimum approval threshold score then we will decline your loan application.

 

Looking at your record,

I see that your credit model score was never under the minimum approval threshold for any of the loans for which you were approved.

For instance, on 07/12/2007 you had a credit model score of -0.0636 on your QuickQuid loan # 20934 when the minimum approval score was 0.

Your credit model score is higher the minimum approval score which shows that our affordability assessments properly ran per our internal policy.

 

It is in our mutual interest to have a well-designed affordability model.

As a responsible lender,

we provide customers such as yourself with access to credit and take upon ourselves the risk of default.

 

While we will not reject a customer simply because there is a late payment on a credit file,

we will critically assess the details of your credit file to provide you with a reasonable and affordable loan.

 

The investigation of your complaint also considered all relevant information contained in your application.

It was noted your monthly income was stated as £1920 per month.

I compared your income to your total monthly repayment for each loan you took with us.

 

From this I can see that the income you made during each payday loan with us was always more than enough to cover the amount you had to repay us for each loan and thus I cannot agree with you that your loans were unaffordable.

 

DEPENDENCY

You are claiming that you were dependent on loans.

Yet if you were dependent on taking out one loan to repay the other then you would have taken out numerous loans,

for equal or increasing loan amounts,

and with very little time between paying off one loan and taking out the other.

 

When I reviewed your loan history I see that you never had more than four consecutive loans with less than 15 days between loans.

 

CONCLUSION

Therefore it is for the above reasons we cannot agree that QuickQuid irresponsibly lent to you.

 

As this is our Final Response regarding your concerns to the above referenced account,

if you are not happy with this outcome I need to ensure that you are aware of the ultimate availability of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service,

free of charge but you must do so within six months of the date of this letter.

 

If you do not refer your complaint in time,

the Ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint

and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances.

 

For example, if the Ombudsman believes that the delay was as a result of exceptional circumstances.

 

I have provided you with a link to the leaflet for your information to assist you if you decide to pursue this further course of action.

They can be contacted at:

The Financial Ombudsman Service,

Exchange Tower,

London,

E14 9SR.

Tel: 0300 123 9123

Email: [email protected]

Further details are also available on http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

FOS consumer leaflet: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/consumer-leaflet.htm

 

___________________________________

 

Lost of stuff that makes no sense to me... any advice?

Or is it now time to complaint to financial ombudsman..

Link to post
Share on other sites

twaddle to throw you off the scent

 

off to the FOS then.

 

dx

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...