Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Tigerbaby

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I've gone down that route and written to the OFT. Apparently, the license the umrella company holds allows them to canvas oher premises. Still, if they let a company they own (the trader) broker a loan, either they or the trader ought to be regulated by either the FSA or the FOS and they're certainly not regulated by either. Now, the question is, who's responsible for misselling the loan? The broker, its umbrella company (after all, they've got the license), or the credit provider?
  2. How can I find out if they're supposed to be regulated and by which organisation? It's altogether a bit more complicated as the trader's company is owned by another company (calling itself a "holding company") operating on different premises. On the date the loan was brokered, the trader did not disclose this detail. I later found out that the trader did not hold a consumer credit license on the date the loan was brokered but its umbrella company did. So, who's ultimately the responsibe party? The trader, its umbrella company or the credit provider?
  3. What if a trader who's not regulated by either the FSA or the FOS brokers a loan with a credit provider without performing an affordability check an without offering PPI?
  4. Haven't received anything from CapQuest yet. Now, I've been told by two financial advisors independently that the loan agreement smacks of unprofessional lending because (a) they didn't offer me PPI, (b) they didn't ask me to fill out an affordability guide but only ran a credit check and © the lady brokering the loan wasn't a financial advisor. Hence, I've sent a CCA request to Clydesdale bank HQ on 29/7 and up to now, they've neither acknowledged my request nor come up with the goods. I've drawn up a LBA to TIC/LVG but haven't posted it yet because I've got a suspicion that the loan ag
  5. My solicitor closed the file about a year ago, his reason being that I throw good money after bad. Clydesdale Finance claimed they'd never received his correspondence although they contradicted this by sending me a letter which made it obvious that they had and had just been waiting for the reaction of the course provider. I then sent Clydesdale a letter asking which amount would clear the debt. What they asked for was almost double the original amount (not even 6 months after the repayment date). They then sold the debt to Barclays who half a year later sold it to CapQuest. They as yet haven'
  6. I certainly did inform the course provider in writing including a doctor's letter and asked for a refund. Once the repayment date had passed (and they'd had about 2 months since I had reported the injury) they replied denying me a refund but offering me to attend the course indefinitely which in case of RSI is of course totally useless. I panicked and consulted a solicitor who wrote to the course provider and Clydesdale Finance but didn't get any reply despite a couple of reminders he'd sent. Clydesdale Finance kept sending me letters upping the charges. Finally, another couple of months later
  7. Well, in my case it was a bit more complicated. When signing up for a driving instructor course, the lady who'd conducted the introduction offered me a one-year interest-free loan to cover the course fees that had to be paid in advance and there and then brokered it with Clydesdale Finance. About 8 months into the course I sustained RSI on my left hand as a consequence of instructions given and asked for a refund as I couldn't continue. They let me wait until the repayment date had been and gone and then sent me a letter refusing the refund which according to DSA business code of practice, I w
  8. I've read the amendments which don't leave me any the wiser. It seems to mean that there's no time limit for the creditor to supply a CCA the debtor has requested. He only can't enforce the agreement while the default continues but if say, he "finds" the documents within a year he can convince a court to issue a summons to the debtor. Quite frankly, I can't see much consumer protection in this amendment.
  9. So, what you're saying is that despite them not having supplied the documents within the required time frame and despite the fact that the loan agreement wasn't fair to you, they managed to drag you to court and the judge ruled in their favor? Not to mention that neither the OFT, TS, nor your local MP clamped down on them? So where does that leave the consumer? Did you get advice from CAB?
  10. Hi, Hopeful1, Are you sure the agreement is enforceable? Show it to a financial advisor you can trust and there may be something missing that gives you grounds for a complaint on the basis that you've been treated unfairly. For example, did they offer you PPI and did they check if you can afford repayment based on your income/expenses? Or did they simply check your credit rating (as they've done with me) and once they found that's okay they gave you the loan? Was the person who sold you the loan qualified as a financial advisor? Also, I think, they ought to have given you the right to wit
  11. Would look a bit odd though if it took the creditor more than a month to "find" the agreement and I imagine that, especially in case of a DCA, a judge might frown upon a "delay" that's gone beyond the 30-day mark and thus, has become an offence. As I've read on another thread, once a DCA offers the client a discount if he/she pays the full amount within a certain timeframe, they don't make these kinds of offer out of humanitarian considerations but because the original agreement for whatever reason isn't enforceable and they know it. Similarly, "not being able to get hold of" the original
  12. I've looked up the consumer credit act 1974 sections 77-79 and from what I can make of it, it means that if a creditor doesn't respond to a CCA request within 12 working days (day of receipt counts as 0), "(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enfore the agreement; and (b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence." I assume that it would give ample grounds to dispute an agreement if it suddenly turned up either while the default continued or once the creditor had already committed an offence. The law's a bit fuzzy and I'd appreciate any expe
  13. Could anyone please comment on these agreements? Especially, how come that TIC aren't regulated by some government organisation despite the fact that they broker financial products???
  • Create New...