Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • 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

Mr Lender. Irresponsible Lending claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2163 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

Hi all.

I had a loan with Mr Lender.

I emailed today regarding a claim for irresponsible lending as I have issues with problem gambling.

I have stopped gambling and taking it one day at a time.

 

I had a reply within the hour.

They said they carried out proper checks and I had no defaults or problems in the last three years.

 

I already had two loans open with sunny and one with money boat.

 

My credit card was over its limit and I was overdrawn.

 

They stated that the installments that are due are never over 12 per cent of disposable income.

 

But the next sentence said my installment was under 14 per cent????

 

There was no mention of the gambling issues nor the multiple searches that are on my file.

 

What's the next step?

 

A reply outlining what I said here then the FOS?

 

Any advice great-fully received.

 

Feel free to move thread if needed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Two replies I had from Mr Lender;

 

Dear Mr

 

Reference:

 

Thank you for your email dated the 25th January 2018. As you have made us aware of your dissatisfaction with the service you have received, we have conducted a thorough investigation in order to address the concerns you have raised.

 

Please find below a summary of your complaint and the explanation for our decision.

 

Your complaint outlined:

 

  • You believe you are a victim of irresponsible lending
  • You have CCJs, defaults and other payday loans on your credit file
  • You have gambling issues

Investigation:

 

We have reviewed your account and can see that you have taken out just one loan with Mr Lender

 

Before your loan was issued your application was subject to Mr Lender’s responsible lending assessments.

These included thorough affordability checks as well as a credit check with the information provided by the credit reference agency, Call Credit.

 

These were conducted in line with our Responsible Lending Policy to assess your suitability.

 

The results of your credit check showed you had a credit score of.

 

This score is considered above average when compared to the scores we had seen during 2017.

 

You also had no accounts registered as defaulting or in delinquent status within three years prior to your application dates.

 

There was no evidence of any advances against income which would indicate short term borrowing from other lenders.

 

There was also no evidence of IVAs or Bankruptcy on your credit file.

 

We conducted an employment check in order to ensure that you were receiving a regular monthly income.

Upon application of your loan you informed our underwriting staff that you were employed by.

 

Our lending decisions are also based on the information a borrower provides to us,

as a consumer it is your responsibility to provide the correct information to assist us to determine the affordability of your loan application.

 

We should be able to trust that the information provided by a customer is a true and accurate reflection of their situation.

 

You confirmed the following upon application:

 

Your net monthly income was

Your expenditure was which consisted of:

Mortgage and Rent -

Electricity, Gas and Water -

Food and Travel -

Telecommunications -

Council Tax -

Other Loans -

Other regular outgoings -

 

All of the above information was confirmed verbally over the telephone at the time of your application and would have left you with a disposable income of .

 

We can also confirm when questioning outstanding payments on your credit file you confirmed you had a card, which you were paying a month towards.

 

We can confirm that based on the information provided by you during our affordability checks,

your highest instalment due during your loan will not exceeded any more than 12% of your monthly disposable income of £.

 

The checks we conducted were proportionate to the amount of capital borrowed and the results of these checks were deemed sufficient.

 

Based on the actual loan amount borrowed, the loan issued is under 14% of your monthly income and therefore affordable as per the information provided and confirmed by you.

 

At the time of applying for your loan,

you would have had to confirm that you had read and understood the Adequate Explanations document.

 

We would not have been able to process your application unless this was confirmed.

 

This document states the following:

 

Your agreement is intended to provide funding over a short term period of no more than four months.

It is important for you to know that entering into this agreement would be unsuitable to support sustained borrowing over long periods and would be expensive as a means of longer term borrowing, such as over a number of years.

 

You should not consider taking out this loan if you are unsure you can meet the required monthly repayments, including if you are already in financial difficulty’.

 

Having reviewed and investigated your complaint,

we believe that all checks were carried out in line with the company’s responsible lending policy.

 

All of the assessments conducted by Mr Lender were completed in accordance with the regulatory requirements and guidance at the time of your loans set out by the Financial Conduct Authority.

 

The result of our investigation:

 

We make lending decisions based on the information a borrower provides to us at the time of application,

this is in addition to credit checks and our underwriting evaluation.

 

When you provided us with your monthly income and expenditure at the time of your application and signed the Consumer Credit Agreement, you agreed that the information was accurate and that you would be able to repay the loan based on this information. There was no indication at the time of application that you could not afford the loan that we issued to you.

 

You have only taken out one loan with Mr Lender just one month ago of which is still outstanding and would not be viewed by ourselves, as irresponsible.

 

We can confirm Mr Lender has complied with all regulatory requirements and guidance set out by the FCA when funding this loan, along with offering you the relevant support to help you with settle your loan.

 

Please find attached a copy of your original contract; your first instalment of is due today (25th January 2018).

 

If you are unable to make the payment, please note we can to set you up on a repayment plan to support you.

This will allow you to repay any money owed over a longer time than what was originally outlined in your contract and allow you to repay your loan more comfortably.

 

However, we must make you aware this may show as an 'arrangement to pay' on your credit file and may also affect your ability to borrow from Mr Lender in the future.

 

This is our full and final response to your complaint; we look forward to hearing from you.

 

Additional Information

We are committed to providing the best possible outcome.

However, should you feel dissatisfied with our final response you may refer your complaint to our Trade Association, the Consumer Credit Trade Association (“CCTA”) by writing to the Chief Executive, Consumer Credit Trade Association, Airedale House, Aire Valley Business Park, Dowley Gap Lane, Bingley, West Yorkshire, BD16 1WA.

 

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 email.

 

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.

 

You can contact the Financial Ombudsman Service by visiting http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/, calling 0800 023 4567 or emailing [email protected].

You can find below a link to the Financial Ombudsman Consumer Leaflet, should you require a hard copy we can send this to you via post.

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

 

Your right to complain to the FOS is independent of your right to take your complaint to the CCTA. You are not required to approach the CCTA before the FOS.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Amy

 

Complaints Department

Telephone: 0208-532-5022

Web: www.mrlender.com

Post: Mr Lender, PO Box 366, Loughton, IG10 9EW

 

Dear Mr,

 

Thank you for your email and sorry to learn you have been dissatisfied with our response to your complaint.

 

Please be aware we can take up to eight weeks to investigate a complaint, however as you have only had one loan which was taken out just one month ago we already had all the information we needed for a response.

 

In regards to your credit file, all of our customers must meet our lending criteria in order for us to ensure that we are lending responsibly. We do not lend to those customers who are experiencing financial hardship and would be unable to repay the loan.The credit checks and affordability checks performed upon each application indicated you were a credit worthy customer and deemed the loan affordable.

 

Responsible lending needs to be matched by an element of responsible borrowing. We should be able to trust that the information provided by a customer is a true and accurate reflection of their situation at any given time and this enables us to assess their personal circumstances better.

 

 

As a consumer it is your responsibility to provide correct information to assist us to determine the affordability of your loan application. Borrowers are encouraged to always undertake their own assessment of affordability concurrent with that undertaken by the creditor.

 

You confirmed upon application that you had a disposable income of, the highest instalment outlined in your contract was your first instalment for. This is just 12% of your disposable income. Your loan amount as a whole of is precisely 14.2% of your monthly salary of.

 

As you took the loan was taken out just one month ago, you would have been fully aware of your financial situation and that you should not have considered taking the loan out if you were unsure you can meet required monthly repayments. We can confirm Mr Lender has complied with all regulatory requirements and guidance set out by the FCA when funding this loan.

 

The first we have been made aware of your financial difficulty is through your complaint just before you were due to make your first instalment, if a customer advises us that they are struggling financially, as a responsible lender we will always offer further help and support. Which is why we have offered to set you up on a repayment plan, allowing you to repay your loan in smaller monthly installments.

 

We can confirm to support you further you we will be able to freeze your account for a period of 30 days, giving you enough time to organise your finances and get in contact with us to set up a repayment plan.

 

 

If we do not here from you within this time the daily interest that would have accrued on your account may be reapplied. Unfortunately if we do not hear from you after this time and you become over due, then interest will continue to be charged on the capital at 0.8% per day.

 

 

If the payment is not received, this may affect your credit and payment history. We report our customers’ payment history to credit reference agencies and this information may be seen by other lenders.

 

As advised in our initial response, this our full and final response to your complaint.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Amy

 

Complaints Department

Telephone: 0208-532-5022

Web: www.mrlender.com

Post: Mr Lender, PO Box 366, Loughton, IG10 9EW

Link to post
Share on other sites

pers I think they are trying to bamboozle you with al kinds of excuses.

 

off to the FOS me thinks..

 

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

  • 3 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...