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 
        • 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

+20 PDLs - Irresponsible lending advice please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2011 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

right. i have a reply from Lending Stream. Its poor to say the least. my original letter was complaining about 8 loans between 2013-16. They have sent the following:

 

 

 

 

Dear

This is in reference to your correspondence dated 15th April 2018 about a complaint questioning the affordability of certain loans taken out with Lending Stream. We have reviewed your accounts and would like to share our findings.

Before doing so, we would like to highlight that Lending Stream conducts rigorous affordability assessments for all its customers on each and every loan application. Furthermore, we would like to clarify that Lending Stream does not offer payday loans where the full amount is due within a thirty-day period, nor do we allow for rollovers. The Lending Stream product is a monthly installment loan, with a typical tenure of 6 months, designed specifically to lower the monthly repayments and allow the customer to repay the loan over a longer period of time.

 

Our Findings

Between 9th November 2015 and 9th November 2015, you borrowed one loans from Lending Stream with Loan IDs -. One loan was successfully closed In-fact one loan was pre-closed before the original loan term. Below, we highlight the affordability checks conducted on each loan which was offered to you.

 

Loan was approved for 100 GBP on 9th November 2015 based on the following affordability information and checks:

· Your stated monthly income was 1290 GBP and you confirmed that you were in full-time employment. We also independently verified this income with third party sources

· Your stated monthly expenditure was 630 GBP, leaving you a monthly disposable income of 760 GBP. Furthermore, we asked you to subdivide those expenses into specific categories, where you provided the following breakdown:

o 230 GBP for Mortgage / Rent

o 50 GBP for Utilities

o 100 GBP for Food

o 100 GBP for Transport

o 100 GBP for Credit Expenses

o 50 GBP for Other Payments

· Using national averages for expense categories where data is available as a third party verification of your submission, we revised upwards your total stated expenses and this still resulted in a viable disposable income

· The loan amount approved was 100 GBP which resulted in an average monthly payment to Lending Stream of 31.73 GBP, well within the overall disposable income

· A credit worthiness check was completed and the third party credit reference agency confirmed a rating which was satisfactory for the loan obligation

 

Based on the above information we conclude that proper and proportionate affordability checks were conducted on Loan .

 

Based on all the loan by loan information provided above, we conclude that proper and proportionate affordability checks were conducted at the time each loan was approved. One loan was successfully closed In-fact one loan was pre-closed before the original loan term. We received no calls or emails from you at any point during this time indicating financial difficulty or distress. If you have any additional information that would be helpful in investigating this complaint, please send that to us. Otherwise, please consider this as our final response on the matter.

 

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.

 

For further information, please visit http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

 

Should you have any unaddressed queries, you may email us at [email protected] or call on 0203 365 0138 from Monday-Friday, 7AM-10PM (call charges apply).

 

Regards,

Lending Stream Complaints Department

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOS now

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

hi fkofilee, ive sent off FOS complaints for satsuma and lending stream. not told either.

im maintaining my £1 to satsuma whilst this is being looked into.

 

given lending streams poor response, im expecting them to chase me for money as the payment plan is due to increase to £29 this month.

 

do i keep paying them £1 a month token payment or email them to put the account on hold? they have not even acknowledged the complaint for the loan that is outstanding, der!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

pers i'd stop cant harm you any

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

3/4 of 4 responses now in. acknowledged i had other accounts open but no judgements. there were defaults at the time:

 

You believe Uncle Buck did not perform the correct affordability checks prior to approving your loan applications.

 

Our Investigation and outcomes

 

You made your first application on xx January 2016, for an amount of £100.00, to be repaid over three monthly instalments of £52.93. Your application went through a credit check performed by the credit reference agency Call Credit, which confirmed the monthly income you provided of £1 290.00, was accurate. You were also subject to a work verification check, to ensure you were employed as stated on your application. The results confirmed you’d provided accurate employment information.

 

As part of the application process, we asked you to provide details of your monthly income and expenditure, in order to assess your affordability. Alongside your monthly salary of £1 290.00, you provided monthly expenditure which amounted to £300.00, this left you with a disposable monthly income of £890.00.

 

Having met our lending criteria, your application was approved. We received payment in full on 29 February 2016.

 

You made your next application on 29 February 2016, for an amount of £350.00, to be repaid over three monthly instalments of £177.67. You reapplied using the existing customer section of our website, confirming your monthly income remained unchanged from your previous application. You provided monthly expenditure which amounted to £500.00, including £100.00 towards other credit commitments. This left you with a disposable monthly income of £890.00. We also confirmed your application with you telephonically, during which you confirmed you were not considering, seeking or involved with any debt management, and the loan was not to repay other debts. Having met our lending criteria, your application was approved.

 

On xx March 2016, you contacted us and requested an early settlement figure. We advised you it would cost £431.20 to settle your loan which you accepted and paid, and your account was noted as repaid and closed.

 

You made your final application on xx May 2016, for an amount of £800.00, to be repaid over three monthly instalments. You reapplied using the existing customer section of our website, confirming your monthly income of £1 419.00. You provided monthly expenditure which amounted to £440.00, this left you with a disposable monthly income of £979.00. Having assessed your affordability, we offered you a reduced amount of £700.00 to be repaid over three monthly instalments of £342.92, which you accepted.Having met our lending criteria, your application was approved.

 

On 12 May 2016, you contacted us to advise your scheduled repayments would not be affordable as your working hours had been reduced. We asked you to provide your updated income and expenditure information and confirmation of your reduced working hours, in order to agree a repayment arrangement.

 

On 6 May 2016, you contacted us to advise the income information you provided to us at the point of application was incorrect as you included possible overtime. Having reviewed your updated income and expenditure information, we agreed a repayment arrangement with you.

 

We received your complaint on 16 April 2018. Your account was placed on hold while we investigate.

 

Investigation Conclusion

 

I have decided the outcome of your complaint based on the evidence I have to hand. I am sorry to tell you that I do not uphold your complaint.

 

When assessing your loan applications, we conducted a credit check to assess your creditworthiness. As a high risk lender, even if your credit file contained certain adverse information, we would have still considered your applications. In addition to a credit check, we base our decision to lend using data held within our internal risk scorecard.

 

During our assessment of whether you were able to afford the repayments, we took into account the monthly income and expenditure you supplied on your applications. You indicated on your applications that you had enough disposable income to pay the loans back. The figures you provided did not highlight that you were experiencing financial difficulty at the time.

 

Uncle Buck believes that in addition to our responsible lending policy, customers ought to employ an element of responsible borrowing. To assess any loan application, we rely in part on the information provided by customers in respect of their income and expenditure.

 

As there is no independent way to check a customer’s expenditure, we expect customers to provide us with true and accurate information in this regard. I do not find it unreasonable that we relied on figures you provided as part of our lending decisions.

 

In addition to the above, I remind you that upon confirming your monthly income and expenditure within the loan application, you specifically agreed to the following disclaimer: “I agree that the financial information provided is accurate and I have considered potential and future income and outgoings in determining my ability to repay the loan requested”.

 

We understand our responsibility as a lender is to ensure each loan we approve is affordable and I am of the opinion that the checks performed in respect of your applications were both adequate and appropriate. We only approved your loans once we had checked and were satisfied you could afford to repay them.

 

I have reviewed the credit searches which we obtained at the point of application, they show you did not have any active judgements. In addition, they show you only opened a maximum of six accounts in the previous six months, which would suggest you were not reliant on short term lending. There was nothing within your credit file which would have given us reason to decline your application.

 

Whilst you have taken out a number of loans with us, I do not consider our three month instalment product allows for consecutive borrowing. It is specifically designed to ensure consumers do not enter a cycle of borrowing. We do not allow a customer to make a new application after the first or the second instalment is repaid but rather when all three repayments have been paid, therefore you could only make a new application at the very least every three months. The point of this is for each loan you were able to repay the first two instalments without borrowing again, which - in my opinion – evidences the loans were affordable for you and breaks any potential borrowing cycle.

 

I feel it is important to highlight that your ability to repay the loan was impacted by a change in circumstances, your reduction of income, rather than the loan itself being unaffordable. I am satisfied that we acted sympathetically when you advised us that you were experiencing financial difficulty by agreeing a repayment arrangement.

 

In summary, I am satisfied we assessed your affordability at application correctly and it was your subsequent financial difficulty which hindered your adherence to the original loan agreement.

 

I note that you have a balance outstanding which you were repaying through a repayment arrangement. I will continue to hold your account until the close of business on 25 June 2018 to allow you to contact the Collections Department on 01959 583 979 to reschedule your repayment dates. Please be advised that if we do not hear from you within the above timeframe the hold will expire, and recovery action will resume.

 

If you are currently experiencing financial difficulty I have included a list of organisations who may be able to assist you:

 

The Money Advice Service

 

Telephone: 0300 500 5000

 

http://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

as you are an expert at this why not help FK and me advising others here recently

we are getting snowed under sky?

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

Wouldn't say i'm an expert but i'm certainly learning on the job. thats 3/4 of the companies ive not logged to FOS. just waiting on responses.

 

But, more than happy to update my progress and chip in and help absolutely. would love to get some good results out of this and give something back to this wonderful site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are doing amazing but it bogs the siteteam down doing the mundane things like heres the PDL IRL link this how this happens etc

and we wont critise either if you get things wrong ..not what cag is about

 

if you've not found your way around either look at threads in this forum and their titles

or use the SEARCH CAG box of the red top toolbar

 

irresponsible lending or whatever.

we often find newbies come here with a PDL issue and dont even know about IRL.

 

regards

 

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

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...