Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Irresponsible Lending Claim due to 7 PDL company loans over gambling


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2068 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

update, Mr Lender still not accepting responsibility, see below their response. i said they should have taken my defaults into account and that i couldnt service these accounts which is why they still in default since 2013! i have reported this to the FOS, any thoughts on the below?

 

Dear Mr Campbell,

 

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

 

We can confirm all credit scores are different depending on the credit reference agency that you are using; the scores shown on your credit file were confirmed with Call Credit. 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 loans affordable.

 

Please note, neither the OFT or the FCA have ever stipulated that lenders have a mandatory duty to request bank statements or payslips. However, in some cases where application information can't be verified, we may get in touch to request supporting documentation and we can confirm that upon application for your loan your salary was verified through with your payslip.

 

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.

 

Furthermore, part 5 of your contract titled ‘Payment and Continuous Payment Authority’ also states ‘Subject to the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, we will be entitled to demand that you repay the whole of the balance due under this agreement if any of the following events occur’ Part 5.2 states ‘any information you have given us was incorrect in a material respect.’

 

As previously advised, you have had just one loan with Mr Lender and we have offered to reduce your outstanding balance from £275.20 to the original capital amount borrowed of £200.00. As you have already paid Mr Lender £30.40 towards your loan, we will reduce your capital to the remaining amount of £169.60.

 

We have also offered, that this new balance can be repaid via an affordable repayment plan. Further to this as explained, we are able to remove any adverse information from your credit file.

 

Upon acceptance of our offer, it will mean that you have not paid any interest towards your only loan with Mr Lender.

 

There is no further offer available that we can give to you. The Financial Ombudsman Service will not ask a business to repay or wipe any of the original capital. As a lender, the maximum we can offer to resolve your complaint is to remove any interest and charges applied to the account. This is what we have offered, therefore meaning you will only repay the remaining capital amount in which you borrowed.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Brooke

 

Complaints Department

Link to post
Share on other sites

see now im concerned that when they dont know its with FOS if i dont respond they could just forget about the agreement they have proposed and put all the interest back on.....then what if the FOS rejects this and ive got a bigger bill to pay at the end of it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

makes no odds

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

The FOS dont allow them playibg around

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

Nice divert tactic there Mr Lender... Shame if someone proved you wrong... Again...

Like the 50 times before ^_^

 

Seriously - Just go to the FOS. If they disagree then you refer to an Ombudsman...

After that... If all doesnt work out - Then come back and see us :)

 

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

that's exactly why..

if they don't say its a GOGW, they are admitting wrong doing...= bigger FCA fines to come..

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

Sorry i missed this.

 

A GOGW is used to remove any wrongdoing - They use it to seem like they are helping you and in some cases a GOGW can be a good thing.

I saw an Mob Op case once where someone had their phone stolen and they ended up with a massive bill of fraud charges. The Mob Op refused to do anything and rightly so - But then a public newspaper got involved and the GOGW was full removal of all charges.

Thats when a GOGW is a good thing.

 

In these cases a GOGW is a cheap get out clause.

Recently it was discovered that the FCA uphold a significant amount of HCSTC IRL Complaints. Even though GOGW had been used in a lot of cases.

Its all up to you. If you are happy with their responses and want to take them up then you should consider it. If not go to the FOS.

 

The Reclaim guide has been updated today - It now discusses GDPR and getting information.

 

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

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

That's a fair offer from Mr Lender. They're correct, the FOS will only ask Mr Lender to remove the interest and charges if they uphold your complaint, you still have to pay back the original amount borrowed. So Mr Lender has already offered to do what the FOS would tell them to do if they uphold your complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...