Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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 2327 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...