Jump to content

Spursflyer

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. The issues with disputes involving mobile phones, is that if you do have a dispute and it is referred to an Ombudsman scheme, then if your claim is upheld any award could at best be described as mediocre. One of the key areas that needs to be explained, which may form beneficial to consumers are linked transactions which may fall under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, are thus referable to FOS, which could result in an award exceeding £5,000. When consumers often take out a mobile phone contract, they often have to pay an additional fee to obtain certain handsets, in particular where the I-phone is involved. This additional fee could in many instances be paid by credit card, which in effect, relates back to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The handset is an essential part of the transaction as you cannot utilise an airtime agreement with O2 etc without one - you need the phone to make the calls ! The airtime contract may sit outside of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, however, the purchase of the handset could be deemed to be a linked transaction. In addition both the handset and the airtime contract are very often sold by the same company. Question, if a dispute was to arise in respect of the phone contract and the consumer was; a. in a position where there airtime agreement debt was sold to a debt collector. b. involved in a dispute arose about the product being fit for purpose. ie no signal area, faulty phone etc Then surely FOS would be able to provide an opportunity to adjudicate and award the consumer enhanced redress if any dispute was handled in an efficient manner ? At present we are seeing thousands of consumers accounts being handed to companies such as Lowell's, whom would appear to pursue consumers whom often have genuine disputes, without the risk of such companies being penalised sufficiently for the manner in which they handle complaints. At present there is not enough facilities for consumers to seek redress where a. airtime contracts are concerned and b. where consumers are unfairly harassed by DCA's when they have been incorrectly targeted or the debt does not exist.
  2. These guys are out on a "phishing" trip. Be careful how (if at all) you engage with them.
  3. Normally they will only pursue through the bankruptcy channel if after doing their research they can identify that you have assets which could be used to pay off the debt. What's the point of spending £750+ to make someone bankrupt just to prove a point, baring in mind, that Lowell have probably bought a tertiary debt for 5p in the £1. If the debt was 5k it's probably just cost them just £250, so why spend another £750+ chasing it, as there will be easier fish to fry particularly if you are living in rented accommodation. In respect of the statutory demand a defence will have to be filed and should be filed within 18 days, however, if the lender hasn't asked the court to ratify the demand then you may be able to have it struck out. In respect of a SAR, the key thing here is to send payment by Postal Order, as any cheque that you have will contain details of your signature and also of your bank account. Take this into account as if they record the details and then go down the legal channels, they could apply to have such account frozen, hence, provide them with as little information as possible on you. With regard to the debt always refer to it in the format "alleged" as you do not want to acknowledge that you owe the debt - you merely want them to prove that you owe the debt and that they have traced the right person. In respect of statements that the DCA supplies firstly look for late payment fees and PPI to recover along with any transactions that you may not have authorised. PPI claims can be perceived to be in two formats either; a. payments made, compound interest plus interest at 8% or b. consequential losses .ie the value of the monies that should have been paid for up to 12 months if a claim could have been made where a claim on the PPI has been refused. In respect of the assets that your wife has or that you own in joint names(given that your home is rented) it may be worth holding these for the time being just in your name only, and by contrast ensuring that any household bills are held in her name. That way if they carry out their threat to initiate your wifes bankruptcy then they may find that all they have done is end up helping you reduce your debts. The fact that the lender cannot show that it has issued a default notice and a copy of the agreement to Lowell will be a key issue for them as I was of the opinion that they could not enforce any debt and report it to a CRA unless a default notice had been issued.
  4. I understand this women has worked for a number of Claims Management Companies . Seems to me someone must have upset her somewhere along the way and now she wants to bat for the "other" side ! I wonder if it is just a case of a woman scorned trying to make trouble or maybe was it her cases that have been "stayed" coz she don't know what she's talking about ! lol
  5. I have some associates who work for a company of Debt Advisors . He has informed me that it is widely known within the industry that G E Money and its associated companies has set aside 2 Billion Pounds to pay out against claims for undisclosed commissions .
  6. No the problem with the car is it kept breaking down and the dealer has had it back in the garage 10 times and can't find out whats wrong with it - neither can the manufacturers mechanics who have visited the dealers workshop when the car has been there . The car is less than 3 years old but has done more than 60k miles hence the dealer is saying it is out of warranty .
  7. Good Progress With This ! I have just phoned Phoenix who oversee the Britannic Assurance division of The Pearl Group who gave me a number for "The Mortgage Trust" . On calling them they managed to trace my mortgage roll number with The Mortgage Corporation Direct Ltd and I have requested a copy of the original mortgage agreement which they are going to send me . If anyone else wants to call them their number is :- 0800 550 551 .
  8. I have recently received a copy of a car loan agreement which was taken out in 2001 . On looking at the agreement I have noted that the dealer/ finance company dated their signature in error as being eaxctly 1 year after mine . ie I bought the car on 15/12/01 yet they have signed the agreement as being 15/12/02 . Would this imply that for the 1st of the 4 years of the agreement that the agreement was unenforceable or that the agreement in its entirety is unenforceable ?
  9. Hi Wino , I have managed to track this back thanks to some guy at Wilmington referring me back to the FSA . I gave them a call and they checked their records and this is how it all unfolds :- The Mortgage Corporation Direct Ltd Dukes Court , Woking , Surrey This company was a trading name of :- Brittanic Money Investments Services Ltd According to FSA records . Who were owned by :- Brittanic Assurance PLC Who in September 2005 merged to become :- Resolution PLC Who on 1st May 2008 were sold to :- Pearl Group Ltd in Peterborough I hope the Pearl have got some money put aside for a few good claims !
  10. After requesting a copy of a car loan document I noticed something very strange about the signatures on the agreement . The lender have dated their signature on the document exactly a year apart from my signature so where I have signed it say on 21st Feb 2004 they have signed it as 21st Feb 2005 . Does this mean that for the first year of the agreement the loan was unenforceable and that I may be able to get some money refunded from them or that the loan is unenforceable in full ?
  11. In the late 1980's early 1990's we had a mortgage with a company called "The Mortgage Corporation" who occupied some large buildings in Woking in Surrey . The mortgage itself at the time was a sub-prime mortgage and consequently the rate ot interest we were charges was extortionate . I have heard that we can pursue a claim against this company for compensation in respect that it was possibly mis-sold , however , we have one problem ! Does anybody know who took them and their customers records over and where we can write to them ?
  12. I have recently received a copy of a car loan agreement which was taken out in 2001 . On looking at the agreement I have noted that the dealer/ finance company dated their signature in error as being eaxctly 1 year after mine . ie I bought the car on 15/12/01 yet they have signed the agreement as being 15/12/02 . Would this imply that for the first of the 4 years of the agreement that the agreement was unenforceable or that the agreement in its entirety is unenforceable ?
×
×
  • Create New...