Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Documents arrived today dated 27th March.  This is a cc taken out a long time ago (2008) and they don't seem to have been able to provide a copy of a CCA agreement, just reams of print outs of lines of texts from old bank statements, default notices etc.   
    • Documents finally arrived today from PRA group.  New day have sent me lots of paperwork, copies of default letters and statements, print out of what looks like a CCA that would have been completed on online, IP address as signature.  This debt is not too old, so possible this is the true copy of agreement ?  Not sure what my defence would be beyond irresponsible lending. 
    • pers i wouldn't.. all you need to know is in the posts of that thread....that being section 127(3) of the CCA refers. if under a CCA return, the 'creditor' claims its a recon, it must not contain any details like a sig, tickbox, or typed name (whether you signed physically or by online tickbox) 1. those are not necessary in a recon, so why inc them? (faked??) 2, it cant thus be a recon!!, it must be a copy of the 'original' from the original creditor, not from a debt buyers filing cabinet. they shouldn't not be 'mixing' some original docs from the OC with crap from their filing cabinet, claiming its ALL a recon! because some of it is faked. just remember there are far more docs like NOA and a DN that are as equally important to a court claim of 'this debt is enforceable'. never rely solely upon the dodgy agreement argument.
    • India has thousands of small gold refineries which are facing more competition from big players.View the full article
  • 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

Lantern Quick quid accounts


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1493 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

Well back again after a number of years following your success in getting unwelcome finance out of my life forever.

 

I have been receiving emails from lantern relating to a quick quid loan

I admittedly did not fully repay as I was at the time backed into a place where my only way out was to stop paying the payday loans and then deal with the fallout or lose everything.

 

Just at that Time I had loans with Wonga, Myjar, quick quid and pounds to pocket using one to repay another and getting deeper and deeper in.

 

Anyway Wonga wrote off their balance in full with no comebacks following a legislation change.

 

I sent quick quid a letter stating I was intending to defend the way the loan had been approved after a number of previous loans, Irresponsible lending, and received a letter saying they were looking into my complaint and received no further communication from them so forgot about them,

 

then sent their reply to Quick quid as they are the same company

they simply replied saying they would take me to court,

then heard nothing,

 

 

now fast forward four years and I start getting emails from Lantern,

I have not replied to any of them.

 

Firstly for one quick quid account and now they are saying I have 2 quick quid accounts totalling 2,900 pounds.

 

If I try to pay this it will put me right back to square one after managing to get back on my feet and clear all other debts, and start to rebuild my credit rating.

 

Any advice will be welcome.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

have you sent the OC an IRL complaint for these 2 loads.

 

ignore and bounce back the Email the block them.

 

QQ are aware of your correct address are Lantern?

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

I have not sent the OC an IRL I didn't know if I had to send it to Lantern as they have now bought the debts.

I also do not have all the information anymore about all the accounts and different loans I had with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always the oc

Get both running now IRL and sar

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

Thats not what i said is it....

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 only information I have are the two loan reference numbers from Lantern so will have to issue the IRL with those I am assuming they are the Quick quid ref numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not ring QQ and ask for a list of loans by email PDF

and any other PDL co. you used!!

 

as well as a free sar to each

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

That would be quicker, I will ring them tomorrow, Thank you.

 

Could the SAR and the IRL be sent by email.?

 

 

Edit. Don't worry seen your advice in another thread I will send first class post.

Edited by Andyorch
Posts merged
Link to post
Share on other sites

well Quick quid have allegedly provided all the information from my DSAR on my account page on their website for me to down load,

 

when I try to log on ( yes the log on information is correct) it keeps coming back with,

 

this page can not be opened and they are telling me the information is only available for 7 days.

 

do I send another DSAR and specify hard copy's of the information?

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just received the following reply from Quick quid,

 

Customer Summary

Number of Loans 6

# payday 4

# OEC 1

# P2P 1

Number of Loans > 6 Years 2

All loans out of scope? N

Number of loans post 2015 0

 

 

 

 

We are in receipt of your complaint dated 25/07/2018 where you allege that QuickQuid irresponsibly lent to you. As a responsible lender, we have reviewed your lending as it relates to QuickQuid and Pounds to Pocket as these brands are both owned by CashEuroNet. Both brands will collectively be called CashEuroNet moving forward in this correspondence. In our assessment we look at:

• Affordability

• Creditworthiness

• Dependency

• Hardship

I’ve investigated your complaint and would like to bring your attention to the following points:

Under the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules, complaints cannot be made where they concern an event that occurred more than six years ago. Of course, we will still investigate your allegations as they pertain to any loans you have received in the last six years.

AFFORDABILITY & CREDIT WORTHINESS

The investigation of your complaint considered all relevant information contained in your application. It was noted your monthly income was stated as £2300 per month. I compared your income to your total monthly repayment for each loan you took with us. From this I can see that the income you made during each payday loan with us was always more than enough to cover the amount you had to repay us for each loan and thus I cannot agree with you that your loans were unaffordable.

DEPENDENCY

If there was dependency we would expect to see constantly increasing amounts in order to cover the prior loan interest and principal. However, your loan amounts varied and actually decreased from the previous loan which shows that you were not relying on one loan to repay the previous loan.

You are claiming that you were dependent on loans. Yet if you were dependent on taking out one loan to repay the other then you would have taken out numerous loans, for equal or increasing loan amounts, and with very little time between paying off one loan and taking out the other. When I reviewed your loan history I see that you never had more than four consecutive loans with less than 15 days between loans.

HARDSHIP

I reviewed your file and noted that on 06/05/2014 you informed us of your financial difficulty. However, your file also shows that we did not issue you another loan after you claimed financial hardship.

CONCLUSION: COMPLAINT NOT UPHELD

Therefore it is for the above reasons we cannot agree that CashEuroNet irresponsibly lent to you.

As this is our Final Response regarding your concerns to the above referenced account, if you are not happy with this outcome I need to ensure that you are aware of the ultimate availability of the Financial Ombudsman Service. You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge.

The Ombudsman might not be able to consider your complaint if:

• what you’re complaining about happened more than six years ago, and

• you’re complaining more than three years after you realised (or should have realised) that there was a problem.

We think that your complaint was made outside of these time limits but this is a matter for the Ombudsman to decide. If the Ombudsman agrees with us, they will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances (see below).

If you do decide to refer your complaint to the Ombudsman you must do so within six months of the date of this letter.

If you do not refer your complaint to the Ombudsman within six months of the date of this letter, the Ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances.

The very limited circumstances referred to above include, where the Ombudsman believes that the delay was as a result of exceptional circumstances. I have provided you with a link to the leaflet for your information to assist you if you decide to pursue this further course of action. They can be contacted at:

The Financial Ombudsman Service,

Exchange Tower,

London,

E14 9SR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

get off to the FOS quick then

as QQ are imminently going bust according to press reports

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

Casheuronet will try to set off any refunds against the accounts they sold to Lantern. I've been through it and the Ombudsman made a decision for them to either buy the account back, or pay the refund to the third party. So to avoid that you should negotiate a reduced settlement with lantern so there's no debt to set off. That's a standard reply from QQ too, I think they just use a template and input your income and loan dates etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in our guide already.

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

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I have received a letter from QDR Solicitors acting for Lantern debt collection who in turn say they are acting for Quick Quid,

I have already sent a claim for irresponsible lending, only to be told first they could not find my details, then they sent a standard reply,

 

meanwhile Lantern have continually sent emails chasing money until I sent them a letter telling them I was claiming against Quick Quid and had been advised they would not investigate any claims until the administration period was over, which could take a while and that they were acting against FSA guidelines chasing me while the claim was still live and while their client was in liquidation.

 

Then I received a letter today saying if I do not respond in 14 days they will take me to court,

So why they fighting so hard for a client whos gone into administration think they have bought these debts and now have no one to go back to.

 

Any advise would be helpful im very very tired of fighting these people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

old and new threads merged...

 

they are not acting on behalf of QQ, the debt has been sold to them, read the letters carefully.

 

if its not a letter of claim safe to ignore .

 

if it is scan it up please to PDF

 

 

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

not redacted properly...removed

 

doesnt have a title of letter of claim

 - just an idle threat that doesn't say will anything

 

so safe to ignore.

 

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

This is exactly what they are designed to do. Try to look at every letter anew and react accordingly. Easier said than done sometimes - I have in the past sent some very unwise replies telling people to F off. Not my finest hour so I do get the stress it can cause. 

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...