Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Though it would be Highview you would  pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

42 Provident doorstep loans - dismissing IRL claim?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1424 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, i have been helping a friend out who has Provident loans.

He has had for years, so I gather.

 

He has always worked but over the last year in particular is drowning with the debt, whilst paying what he can.

 

Like a idiot last summer he even took 2 loans out with Satsuma to get through

- and since defaulted on these.

Provident hasn't been defaulted to date.

 

I wrote off to Provident for him and complained about irresponsible lending as he's sure loans were paid off by taking new loans in most cases.

 

After a couple of days a letter came back dismissing he's claim and saying since 2006 he had 42 loans although they say since 20 were looked at and as most were over 3 years there's nothing to investigate.They also said they would send a full SAR.

 

I can't find a lot online regarding Provident irresponsible lending and wondering if its worth now complaining to the Ombudsman.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • 1 month later...

Back again...

 

Provident, came back as expected and rejected his complaint and said if your not happy you can complain to FOS....

 

Eventually he received this week all his statements.

I have looked back over the last 6 years only (I assume looking around thats all he can complain about)?

 

In the last 6 years he has had 23 loans,

4 are still active - in arrears -

and the other 19 had all been settled early to take a new loan and it looks as though the amounts of the new loans are higher each time.

He had 42 loans actually over the last 10 years.

 

Whilst i can see people have complained to the FOS

- i can't see any template letters I can amend and use?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

should be an example in the IRL guide

 

should be an easy win through the fos as this was refinance on refinance...

and I bet each time they took a payment within 14days too

 

just send them everything you have now

might be best to scan the lot to PDF and send them the paperwork all on a cheap penstick

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

  • 1 year later...

open

 

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

Thanks DX. 

 

Just thought I would update the thread.

 

After all this time, and out of the blue the FOS adjudicator have sent a letter with there decision and written to Provident to confirm their findings, and upheld the claim on unaffordability.

 

they have said 35 of the loans were unaffordable and should not have been issued.

They have told Provident to refund payments and 8% interest from 2011 on these.

They have given Provident 2 weeks to either accept or come back with any evidence against their ruling and forward to the ombudsman if needed.

 

This is the first we heard after the complaint was made, and no bank statements were asked for.

 

I have no idea how much the 35 loans were for, but estimate around £20,000.

And given that Provident interest rates are normally the same again - its a lot of money.

 

Has anyone else got to this stage and had the claim accepted or rejected by Provident?

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they can't argue really 

as they've been reprimanded and fined by various authorities like the FOS/FCA etc etc so many times now, it was all but a done deal.

 

however , you are not quite reading the outcome right...

it states? Payments made + 8% from the date of each payment till today

so that's not at provi's loan int rate, and you wont get back ever what you didn't payback anyway.

but at 32 loans, that should be quite a sum.

 

have you all the statements showing the payments on the 32 they ruled on?

as you could have a very good stab at exactly what the refund will be.

of which you SHOULD do that anyway, to check they get it right.

 

so do you have that info?

 

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

All payments were upto date and loans all paid off so thats one good thing. Loans were back to 2008 - not 2011 as I thought.

 

I underatand that the actual loans paid out arent included...payment back will be the interest paid plus 8% interest?

 

So we are going to try and workout from paperwork over the weekend. What I do know loans varied between £500 and £2500. Also weekly repayments were around £100 a week for around 6/7 years so thats 5k a year.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the matter of what interest was charged on the Loans is inconsequential .

 

As you say, the loans ran their course and were paid off in full, so the interest charged will, obviously be part of the payments paid .

however, but not in your case, should there be a balance left on a loan, be the interest or not, that would not form part of any refund.

 

so use the statint sheet above

enter EVERY payment made on each of the loans (I suggest ONE statint sheet per loan)

the spreadsheet will automatically calculate the 8% due back for you.

BUT, you MUST enter each payment on the day it was made, individually.

 

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

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...