Jump to content

Fester Tester

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    360
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

94 Excellent
  1. What a ridiculous thing to say. Might I suggest you check your FACTS before posting?
  2. In which case, simply write to Welcome, tell them you will NOT communicate in any way other than letter. So, being in severe diffs with other creditors is a worry. But first thing is to keep a roof over your head. So You need to be speaking with whoever has the mortgage on your house as a priority, and if at all possible, keep those repayments up. Welcome, since they only have a second charge on the property, are on dodgy ground. Even if they took you to court, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to force a sale for only £13K. The problem with coming to any sort of arrangement with them is, they will continue to pile ridiculous amounts of interest on, so you will likely never be free. If you can keep your mortgage company happy, the best bet then would be an IVA. Bankruptcy is seen by the industry as an easy way out for debtors, but it is far from that, so you want to avoid if at all possible. If you go the IVA route, try not to put yourself in the hands of a company who charge for their services. Speak to the CAB and see who they suggest. What town are you in? It might be worthwhile seeing if Christians Against Poverty can help, as they are a charity and don't take a fee. And no, you don't need to be a Christian to let them help you. But as the centres are all based in local churches, not all towns are covered.
  3. Did you have PPI included in your loan? Anything there you can do to reduce you liabilities has got to be worth a try. I'm not so sure repo is a realistic option if all you owe is £13K. And I fail to see how, if that's what you owe, repossession will leave you with a £30K shortfall in any case. Or are you behind on your first charge mortgage too? It's still not clear enough what's going on here.
  4. Has repossession started yet? Or Are you simply being pessimistic? It's not at all clear what stage things are at from what you are saying. Neither is it clear if repossession is a likely scenario. How much is the debt for? Have they actually defaulted you in law? Is it all threats because you have stopped paying? Have you challenged their right to enforce the debt? etc, etc, etc... More info needed before anyone can offer any sort of constructive advice.
  5. Just write back, and tell them that the matter is under investigation by the FOS, and they should not contact you again, otherwise you will include their threatening lettter in that complaint. It's nothing but a ploy to frighten you.
  6. if Andy is calling from WF, he's hardly likely to have bought the debt, is he? Not entirely sure what you are on about. Have repossession proceedings commenced? I assume not, otherwise why would they be hounding you still by phone? As to what to do about it: you could always just try putting the phone down. Or barring the number via BT.
  7. Quite what use that template will be to Tam, I have no idea. Since it deals with unlawful charges. Tam, Welcome will never agree that they are liable to refund beyond 6 years. You'd be better off writing to them and telling them that since you now have their final notice to your complaint, you will be taking up the issue with the FOS. Who will take a humongous length of time to get their finger out. Short of taking Wecome to court, that's your only option. Playing ping pong with letters is going to get you nowhere.
  8. Feckitall. I'm outa here. But at least it's my choice this time. If Bookie and everybody else supporting the ad campaign can't see that the businesses advertising go against the whole ethos of what CAG USED to be about, there's no way anybody is going to change their minds. If you can accept that some people are going to be hurt by taking folks up on their kind offers, then you are either without conscience, or imagination. Before I go, I'll just remind everyone why I have such a downer on Bookie. Here's a venomous wee post from her earlier on, totally unprovoked. And as I have no reason to believe it was written whilst under the influence of alcohol, is in my very humble, and quite probably Festering, opinion simply inexcusable. I can't even see the point of the post apart from being a deliberate attempt to annoy. In which she succeeded admirably. A bit of a childish," My gang is better than your gang" pettiness? Or something rather more sinister. I do wonder what her hidden agenda was there.
  9. I hope this helps Bookie. Big enough picture for you? Still think there's no reason to get annoyed?
  10. Strange then, that I was banned in the past, for breaking the oh-so-important rule of not being allowed to advertise. Except it was on my PERSONAL blog, FFS. Not even ads pointing to Payday loans or ripoff merchants offering credit without checks. But that's OK. So long as nobody thinks there might be double standards at work here. Oh, no. Wait...
  11. Ah, I see. Simpler to get rid of folks who question the fact that Lowells, and any other grime-ridden vermin that feel they would like to "help" their customers in CAG, than to ban the Lowells rep. Yes, that makes perfect sense. To somebody at least. Certainly not to me. Just as I cannot understand why entire threads questioning the subject have been pulled. You may SAY that posts have not been moderated, but you, and many others, know full well that this has not always been so. It seems that the "right to say what they want" does NOT extend to certain genuine posters. So why should it be any different for "James"? It's a reasonable question. But I doubt I'll get a reasonable answer. Heck, I'll more than likely just get flamed again, since there IS no reasonable answer. Far easier just to sidestep questions, than to confront them, eh Bookie? Have you seen the ads yet, Bookie? You seemed happy to tell folks they were talking nonsense in MSE when the subject was brought up, but I accept that at the time you were denied all the information that you required to be able to have an informed opinion. I trust that has now been rectified. Nothing worse than having an opinion based on ignorance after all, although as has oft been said; Ignorance is no excuse.
  12. So, Bookworm. Lowells were given short shrift, were they? Doesn't seem like it to me from reading this thread, ye specky eyed bint. Perhaps if ye went to Specsavers, you'd be able to see the above Lowells poster, and mebbes actually see the ads that everybody but you has noticed into the bargain. Of course, mebbes all ye need to do is remove yer blinkers.
  13. Oh, THIS is interesting. In actual fact, it is CF(UK)Ltd who purchase and own the debt. CF(Europe)Ltd service the account. i.e. Try like buggery to collect on it. They do NOT own it. So if your NoA says they do, the NoA is bolleaux. Make them prove in court that they bought it. They won't be able to, since UK buy the accounts. Always. So NoA is nonsense. Doesn't mean they won't issue a corrected NoA. Maybe. I'm confused though, cos their templating system is set up to send the same guff out to everybody, with the only variable being data pertinent to the recipient; Name, address, account details etc.
  14. So it would appear that Concept Cars are still about, so maybe it's time to have a bash at them. I'd be going in and banging desks.
  15. As if!!! LOL It's just a way around the profanobot.
×
×
  • Create New...