Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I'd change justice centre to county court. I also wouldn't be including a telegraph article in the bundle. It doens't prove anything law and you don't have distribution rights on it. I also wouldn't personally break down the exhibits on the index page, normally people have a seperate page for this right before the exhibits. The main index page normally just says Exhibits to WX of [Your Name] or at least that's the format I use/see people here use, although really it makes minimal difference.   I also see that despite referencing several judgements you haven't included the EVRi one   paragraph 46 really needs to go imo it has nothing to do with anything. Your in court to apply the law to your case, not to tell the judge about a newspaper that means nothing to your claim.   I also see you've adopted the issues in dispute/not in dispute, which is also known as a scott schedule. if you are taking this approach, for things not in dispute I would say this needs to be things that are agreed between parties, not things like "There is no dispute that I am happy to supply all this evidence which is included in the court bundle." I would say that issues in dispute is to focus on the aspects of the claim that are in dispute, such as whether liability is limited by insurance or not, so I'd be changing that accordingly.   BF should be along shortly to advise on things.
    • J, I just numbered them like that; once the witness statement is made, I'll add it to the pages.   The court date has been set as 02 July 2024. Please find attached V6. I will send an unredacted to the email.  claim budle_V6.pdf
    • I'm afraid that I have tried downloading it three times and each time I am getting an error message. Would you mind scanning it again please and uploading it again. I understand that JK has managed to open it but others may not. Thanks
    • I can see that.   In this case, I'd email both that receipt and your tracking label to evri's small claims email and say that is the information you have.   They'll figure it out from there I'm sure
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Irresponsible Lending Claims - Some over 6 Years


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2169 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,

 

 

Since September last year, I have been pursing claims against a total of 17 Payday Loan providers whom I had taken various loans from during the period 2010 to 2014. Of the 17 providers, 6 have settled directly with me and I have currently have 9 claims lodged with the FOS.

 

 

The FOS have stated that they are currently trying to decide whether they are able to consider loans taken out more than 6 years before the start of an irresponsible lending claim, and cannot provide any timescales for the resolution of the issue. Does anyone have any guidance on a likely timescale for this to be resolved as I cannot find any further information?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing you asked... Read the guide on 6 + 3 :)

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=69475

 

 

 

Thanks for the link.

 

 

My dilemma relates specifically to a claim against QQ with whom I had a total of 36 Loans (inc 11 rollovers), and 2 instalment loans with Pounds to Pocket from 2010 to 2014.

 

 

QQ initially offered to refund £1294, against an outstanding balance of £1450. I rejected this and raised a claim with the FOS, QQ have now offered to wipe the outstanding balance and refund £5,800, before the FOS has even considered the claim. However, QQ are refusing to consider the first 15 loans as they are all over 6 years.

 

 

I now have to make a decision as whether to ask the FOS to consider the claim without the first 14 loans or wait for the FOS to decide whether they have the power to rule on claims over 6 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its up to you... 5,5k is a lot of money and to be scotfree of a balance outstanding is substantial...

FOS do quite often rule on loans over 6 years, but its whether you want to push it. I think you should accept 5,8k as a resolution IMHO.

 

As a calculation, how much do you think you should get back?

Have they agreed to wipe all negative info?

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The total interest paid on loans 16 to 36 is just over £6K, plus the usual 8% simple interest.

 

 

If you consider all loans then the total is nearly £8.4K plus 8% simple interest.

 

 

They have offered to remove a number of the loans from my credit file. But not the last 3, which for me is a bit of sticking point.

 

 

Does the FOS ever make a decision that is for less than the PDL lender has already offered?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

well done!

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...