Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


99 Excellent
  1. The FOS Ajudicator was keeping me updated and told me that they are all in discussion to stop Microcredit from dissolving the company. My complaint has been with the Ombudsman for 3 months now. They are now writing their Final Decision based on the evidence they have as Microcredit have not been forthcoming with information requested by the Ombudsman. I should hear within the next week or two. Fingers Crossed.
  2. Update: FOS in discussion with FCA about Microcredit Limited's Status. The company is still Active at Companies House and it looks as if they will stop any attempt to dissolve the company whilst complaints are ongoing.
  3. I am aware they are not obliged to write off the charges and interest, however, they cannot add anymore interest or charges after 4pm on December 10th. The Charges and Interest can still be challenged by customers with OPOS and Kapama Ltd
  4. I cannot find any information either that the companies are related. Different Trading and Registered Addresses, Different Director for each company. The only thing they have in common is their company start date of 2008. It may be that the Directors of the two companies know each other and have an agreement in place to passs on the debts, other than that, there is no other information to support they are the same company.
  5. All FOS Complaints regarding Microcredit Limited are being prioritised. I had this confirmed today as I also have a complaint in. The Ombudsman is already reviewing it and should have a decisionbefore the 29th December.
  6. They will only sell the debts to them and the other named DCA. No more Loans can be given out and all interest and charges are suspended. I expect other Payday Loan companies to follow suit by the end of the month in time for the new FCA Regulation which take effect from January 1st 2015 Good Riddance! to Microcredit Limited.
  7. Effective from 16:00 Wednesday 10th December 2014, Microcredit Limited have Ceased Trading as a Payday Loan Company. [ATTACH=CONFIG]54808[/ATTACH]
  8. The OP is correct. Mainstream Mortgage Lenders (High Street Banks, Reputable Mortgage Companies) will refuse you a Mortgage if you have taken out a Payday Loan. There are a few that may lend providing you have had no more than 2 Payday Loans. This is because they see you as someone who cannot manage their finances and cannot get a Personal Loan from a Bank and have resorted to high interest short term loans. It does not matter to them whether it was an emergency or not.
  9. Can you confirm where you are based so that I can look into getting you the information you need. Some will be relevant to scotland only so will need to leave that ou if you are based in England. Thanks.
  10. You should issue a counter-claim against them for the charges applied to your account. They do not have the money to pay for the High Priced Legal Advisors like the banks. Below are snippets from my Claim which I have not yet submitted as it would cost alot of money to pursue as it would either be held in the Ordinary Procedure due to the length of the claim or possibly through the Outer House of the Court o Session in Scotland. In 2005, they (The Banks) told the House of Commons Treasury Committee bank charges were "going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments". That wasn't true. Nor was it true when the British Bankers Association told us in 2006 that every time a transaction was declined there was a bank employee sitting in an office looking through a customer's file and deciding what to do. In 2007, the banks then claimed overdraft charges were a fee for an informal overdraft. The truth only came out in the OFT's case, and most banks have still failed to communicate this. They admitted the charges are indeed used to subsidise other customers. The Banks have a duty under Section 221 of the Companies Act 1985 to keep accounting records: Sub-Section 1 of the Act provides that, "Every company shall keep accounting records which are sufficient to show and explain the company's transactions." Sub-Section 2 provides that the accounting records shall in particular contain- (a) entries from day to day of all sums of money received and expended by the company , and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure takes place.." You can argue that the defenders should have all of this information to hand which would prove your case. Section 222, Sub-Section 5 of the Act provides that "in the case of a Public Company, these records should be kept for a period of at least 6 years." As these charges levied occurred within the last six years, you can crave the court to order the banks (debt collection agency in your case) to submit these detailed accounts into court showing the actual cost charges in reflection to the charges levied against you. Section 450 Companies Act 1985. (1) An officer of a company who (a) destroys, mutilates or falsifies or is privy to the destruction, mutilation or falsification of a document affecting or relating to the company's property or affairs, or (b) makes, or is privy to the making of a false entry in such a document, is guilty of an offence, unless he proves that he had no intention to conceal the state of affairs of the company or to defeat the law. (2) Such a person as above mentioned who fraudulently either parts with, alters or makes an omission in any such document or is privy to fraudulent parting with, fraudulent making of an omission in any such document, is guilty of an offence. (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both. In the Supreme Court case; The OFT v Abbey and 7 others, Early in his argument Mr Sumption said: "[T]here is.room for argument about whether the insufficient fund charges are part of the price for the package of services or just the particular service which occasions their being charged, but we will submit that it is unrealistic to say, as the judge did, that insufficient fund charges are not payable in exchange for any service at all and are, therefore, not a price at all." Mr Justice Andrew Smith said: I therefore accept the OFT's submission that if a Bank declines to pay upon a Relevant Instruction, it supplies no, or no relevant, services by way of considering, processing or otherwise dealing with it. Effect of unfair term 8.-(1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer. (2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term. 5.5 Therefore, since the terms and conditions of the Bank Account Facility were not individually negotiated, and unfair under the themes listed above, the "Relevant Charges" levied by the defender are not binding upon on the pursuer, the terms of the agreement are unfair to the pursuer and the Pursuer is entitled to be reimbursed accordingly. 5.6 The pursuer craves the court to allow the defenders the opportunity to provide documentation, transcripts from customers showing that they were allowed to open bank accounts without the "Relevant Charges" being part of the contract an or any of the other themes the pursuer has mentioned in his claim above. If you require anymore snippets or legislation, guidelines, case law, just post a message or PM me and I will see what I can do for you. Whatever you do, I think you should fight it and counterclaim. If you lose that, all you stand to lose is your fee for serving the counterclaim. If you require help in doing this let me know and I can help you through the claim process. I am not legally qualified, I just know quite a bit about Consumer Law and have spent over 30 hours researching information for one claim.
  11. SCM Solicitors are one of Lloyds In-house Debt Collection Solcitors. Don't worry about them. Check whether you just have Markers on Your Credit File or have received a Default Notice and Termination Notice in the post. If you have received both Notices, then they cannot add any charges at all (regardless of the amount) to your debt as there is no agreement for them to do so (THEY TERMINATED IT). Claim them all back. I used MCOL and they defended but paid out before it got to court. They know they will lose in court.
  12. Bank Charges are still reclaimable in court although it is a little more complicated. The Supreme Court case only ruled that the OFT could not carry out an investigation as to whether the charges were fair or not. A Judge in the Supreme Court case even confirmed that in a televison interview. Any person with a case that is stayed only has to apply to the court to amend their statement of claim (Particulars of claim). They can find useful information on this site or other helpful sites that are mentioned in these threads. eg Govan Law Center. I am about to take 2 banks to court soon once I receive a reply from the CEO's of both banks who have been given Final Notices of Letter Before Action. My Claim is 70 pages in length and using nearly every piece of Legslation and Statutory Instrument I can think of as well as case law.
  13. This is maybe a bit late, but unfortunately, their calculations are correct. 30% of £220 = £66. 20% VAT of £220 = £44. £66+£44 = £110. They take 20% VAT on the £220 claimed and not the 30% of the claim.
  14. An 'AP' looks worse than a missed/late payment. When an "AP" is used, it signifies that you made an arrangement to pay "something" to them and not necessarily the full amount due, whereas, a Late/Missed Payment may just signify that the full monthly payment was late in reaching them. However, it would be unfair if there is both an AP Special Instruction on your file and marked as Late/Missed for the same month.
  15. the actual cost is £12.00 per quarter for the instant access. Not sure if you still get a free trial, but i think you get 30 days free just like the others.
  • Create New...