Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by lord_tiger_putin

  1. This company is pure filth. Their modus operandi is to "milk" as much money as they can from people in need to whom they promise a truck full of lies to get them to sign up. They have absolutely no intention of getting anyone debt free and have no regard for the law whatsoever and believe they can act with impunity. They got away with that for a long time but the tide has turned. I will post a lot of stuff in the coming days and how they "bragged" that they won all their FOS cases. Even after the ombudsman himself found against them they still tried to play childish games in a silly attempt in trying to avoid paying. Only after the adjudicator seriously threatened them with legal action from the FOS did they settle. This whole process did exposed them to the FOS and they will probable find it now almost impossible to win any case. I will not be surprised if this is the beginning of the end for these blood suckers!!
  2. **************************** JUDGEMENT DAY ***************************** This has arrived, BIG time!! And these dancing clowns seems unable to handle it, they act like a spoiled child throwing his toys out of the pram!! Their reign of impunity has ended and the DO NOT LIKE IT!! Over the next couple of days I will post a lot of detail about the final outcome of the first phase of my action against these people who thought they could rip off people in need to meet their greed so that they can live in luxury and that it will continue interrupted.
  3. I had a a back and throw with them and eventually Aqua did refund ALL the [EDIT] charges plus the correct interest but they refuse the right interest on the [EDIT PPI premiums. They only refunded the small amount of the interest which the premiums incurred for the few days in the month but refused to calculate it in the way that should no premiums not have left the account, which makes a significant difference. That part I send of to the wasted space called the FOS, with them for over a year and still ongoing. On the other hand, RBS refunded eventually all the premiums with correct interest and eventually their the [EDIT] charges, but not the right interest, still an ongoing saga for that interest. It seems that they do not have the right tools to do a proper redress which include the charges!! Not my problem! If they cannot do it then they have to accept my spreadsheet! Sorry, they were eager to deduct these premiums without me even applying for PPI, therefore they did it without my consent, IHO - [EDIT] !! because I did not authorised these deductions! I also insist on compensation for this behaviour because I am convinced that they committed a [EDIT] (actually many, an [EDIT] for every premium!) and therefore they have no leg to stand on! Will see how this continuous to progress through the useless FOS!
  4. huh?!?! All the creditors understand is that they don't get paid!! Should they be aware that there is money available to pay them then one can be sure they will certainly up the pressure to get some money!! The creditors do not know what you are paying these fools, or that you pay them at all, they certainly did not agree to the fact that you can pay into a so-called "pot" at the circus party in Stockport so that these dancing clowns can make a F&F settlement when they eventually wish to do so. The reason why they do not want you to make a lower payment is that they will be losing money!! They are afraid you will be paying less and less and that the money in this circus pot will grow less fast. They draw interest on this money and the amount of money in there determines what they will make out of you in the end. EVERYTHING, I mean EVERYTHING they do and say is based on one and only one principle, how much will they financially benefit because of you. You paying less means they will be benefiting less and this is something which will give them sleepless nights. Also the longer you stay in debt, the more they benefit and the more interest they draw!!
  5. You say they have morals?!? Just show you, one is never to old to learn!!
  6. As stated many times before here and on the rest of the site, doing it yourself is by far the best and most effective way of handling your debts and it is not difficult at all. YOU are in control and can assure that you get every penny back from charges, PPI, etc. You can also make F&F settlement deals very easily, given that you have the means to do so.
  7. You have to remember that their argument is that they keep the money in a pot until they can make a full and final settlement deal. If you have a debt of say £10000 and they make an easily achievable F&F settlement deal of £5000 (could be less, £4000, £3000, etc.), then only £5000 (or less) goes to the creditor and the debt is paid, while you will have to pay the whole £10000 to CCCS and Payplan to settle the debt. If you add their cost and fees then you will have to calculate what you actually pays. For the £10000 debt the 8% is £880 and the 25% settlement fee is £1250, therefore you pay £7130 to get the debt settled instead of £10000 when paying to Payplan or CCCS. As far as I know Payplan or CCCS do not make any F&F settlement deals and cannot do because they do not have your funds stored up to do it. Therefore there is some validity to the point of keeping the money until you can make the F&F settlement deal. The problem is not that they keep the money to make these deals. The problems are that they do not tell the customers what they intend to do, what the consequences is by keeping the money in this so-called "pot", that un-enforceable credit agreements actually means very little, that they draw interest on this money, that they ignore what you ask or require and a whole range of other things and that the service they provide are extremely poor. Add to that arrogance and you have this explosive mix.
  8. Also remember that £11000 in a saving account at an interest rate of 3.2% (can get better than 3.2%) is £30 per month in their pocket!! No mention anywhere, ever about these interests!! Therefore it is certainly worthwhile to have all their clients money in the "pot" as long as possible and to have in their as much as possible!
  9. The one thing you have to remember is that their whole strategy is to see how THEY can make the most money out of your situation. They could not give a rats ass whether you gain anything or loose out significantly! For them it is just THEM and the money they can make OUT OF YOU! You have to view everything they say and do from that point of view.
  10. I want to repost what I have started before I was so childish interrupted by the “Thread Police” because I believe it can be very beneficial to anyone involved with this filthy company, FSFools. I will expand on some points because I certainly do not want anyone to be robbing of some info by a “sensible cagger” from something that may, or maybe not, be beneficial to them. I do not post here for my own benefit and I certainly do not have the time (I do have a real life!) to spend all my time here to be able to make on average 20 posts per day for over a year and then to openly canvas for people to double click my star so that it can shine very bright and make me look só important! I do this purely because I cannot stomach that this filthy company are trying to suck out as much money from people who turned to them when they are in need! There are very little help or advice out there for anyone who wants to cancel their arrangement with these blood suckers. How many people do want to cancel at any one time is very difficult for any outsider to determine but I did hear a figure of around 500 at this time but I am unfortunately unable to verify that. Nonetheless, compare any such figure against the amount of people posting here and add a small number that do read these posts but who prefer not to register, then you can see that there are potentially a vast number of people with absolutely no advice for them. Therefore I post in the hope that it could be beneficial to anyone reading my posts because there is no one else posting here that seems to provide any substantial advice on a continued basis. I would certainly be extremely glad should that actually be the case. I do not claim that I know everything, or anything at all but I based what I write on a foundation and do not pluck anything out of the air. The basis is what I have learnt, what other have experienced and I was made aware of by them and the decisions of organisations like the FOS and legislation and guidance that we all can interpreted. Should anyone disagree with what I write, I will have no objection for them stating that but I will ask that they provide the basis of why they disagree. I make posting base on substance and if you think I am talking rubbish, then it is you’re right to do so. I will extend a bit on what I mean by substance for the benefit of people who are interested in what I am saying and if you are not, then you can simply ignore it! I say what I think but should the statements be harsh then anyone can be assured that the basis of those statements are solid. I am also not afraid to speak my mind and if a spade IS a spade, then I do call it a spade, not everyone prefer to do that. If it is fact and you can proof it to be fact, then it is truth and if the receiving party (or any allies of them!) believes this truth is very abusive, then tough luck! It is then certainly not libel. The FOS had no issue with me making some of the exact statements in communications to them that I have made here because I provided them with the proof. If you do not have the stomach to call a spade a spade but you are more than happy to make defamatory statements without base and comment on others making statements on a sound basis, then you have to accept that star is not shining só bright any-more! Many people that receive the response from FSFools when they cancelled are absolutely dumb smacked by the contents of it and are justifying outraged. The reason for this is that the content often contains mostly rubbish, often outright lies, false statements and a lot of content which make it obvious that the person producing it haven’t thought the response through. Furthermore, many statements and actions speak loudly of being extremely short sighted. All this makes the receiving party extremely angry and outraged but the flip side is that it is potential dynamite in any action such a party wish to take. All you have to do is to produce any paperwork illustrating the lies and false statements and use the foolish statements and short sighted responses to its maximum. What do I mean by lies? Making a statement that they believed a certain person wrote on the envelope used to mail a cancellation to them and that they have matched that hand writing against a previous client of them. This previous client (or anyone currently or previous involved with them) DID NOT wrote on that envelope and therefore there is absolutely no way that they could have matched the hand writing (even if they attempted it!). Making a statement that they have matched hand writing when they haven’t is in my books a lie, you can call it whatever you like! Making a statement to the FOS that the person only complain to them after loosing his/her complaint with the ICO because the ICO found in the favour of the FSFools while it is still an ongoing complaint with the ICO is another example of a lie. Why making such a foolish statement is unclear because there is no benefit in it. Expecting the FOS to believe the ICO completed an investigation in under 2 months and the FOS also received a copy of a letter from the person making the complaint which the person received months after that from the ICO stating that it is still an ongoing case clearly illustrated this lie to the FOS. There are a number of other such examples that I have at my disposal. False and idiotic statements: Making a statement that all the accounts of a certain client were already in default when he/she signed up with them when that was certainly not the case is an example of this. All that this person had to do was to obtain a copy of his/her credit report clearly showing when any default was registered and showing the history of payments made. I put it in this category because the person making this foolish statement did not seems to really know what is meant by a default! Therefore it is not necessary a deliberate lie but it is certainly a false and idiotic statement to make because the proof to the contradictory helps in destroying any credibility that FSFools may have had. I have a whole range of such examples and putting them all together utterly destroyed the creditability of this circus outfit. These types of things are dynamite, as I mentioned earlier, and this is enough to make it clear to the FOS what these fools are about. One should certainly use it because I still have to hear about any person cancelling that received an appropriate response form the fools. I wanted to post on the following topic only at a later stage but I feel compel to try to limit any damage caused to people in need by a certain “sensible cagger”. I have been accused of providing “help”. The adjudicator of the FOS found in our favour, BIG time and FSFools did not accept that. It is now referred to an ombudsman, one can view it as an ‘appeal’, if you are not happy with the decision of an adjudicator, then you can refer it to an ombudsman for another look and decision. Some of the things that I have posted on this thread were based on findings and statements from the FOS. I will also quote one paragraph from the response of FSFools to the FOS (these are there exact words): “The agreement comprises of two pages of A4 and over 840 words and a Debt Schedule . It is not the 4 sentences as you have quoted and taken out of context. If they were I am sure we would not have won 23 cases with the Ombudsman based on the same agreement document. Some of which you adjudicated on. We would like to know why you have made a complete turnaround on the same document.” There is no where on any documentation from either the FOS or FSFools regarding this that this is confidential and I believe that I am allowed to post this paragraph under the following: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/businesses/answers/handle_cases_a5.html What is actually astonishing about their response is that 2 pages are missing!! You respond to the FOS that you do not agree with their findings but you failed to include 2 of the 9 pages!! This once again illustrates how incompetent they are! Imagine the impression this, together with all the false and idiotic statements, this is making on the FOS! I believe only the biggest FOOL will call Information based on statements form the FOS as “help”. I believe I will have to watch my back for the “Thread Police” from now on, he seems to be pretty active!
  11. I see you are not a member of the site team and I have no obligation to explain anything to you. I have dealt with this company extensively, I believe you haven’t and believe you are completely out of line, especially one that referred to them as morons, double standards, isn't it? I reported that post. You bursting into the thread very recently and throwing your weight around is not helpful and is more helpful to this ‘company’ than to anyone else here. You have no idea of the issues at hand. I will not respond to anything you post because I have better things to do than to react to someone bursting into a place and act if they owe it!
  12. Not accusations, facts and I stated that it has been proven. If proven, then it is facts and not accusations.
  13. You have obvious not experienced the correspondence of this person, it is beyond belief. The lies are proven solidly and she is exposed, nothing wrong with that. It is the person at FSF sending these letetrs that I refer to and it is in the interest of anyone dealing with this outfit to be aware of it.
  14. It seems that FSFools have the habit of NOT sending someone the original documents after they cancelled, even if they request it numerously. Only they would know why but is has probable to do with it containing enough damming evidence of them failing to do their job! If you cancel because of you believing they provide you with a bad service and/or that they miss represent what they intended to do, then it is enough reason that they should not keep a penny of the fees that you paid towards them. Now, if they fail to send the original documents, which is the limited results of their so-called 'work', then it is reason enough NOT for them to be allowed to keep any fees paid towards them. It is the same you going to a merchant, pay them for some merchandise and then the merchant refused to give the goods to you!
  15. Even if you do receive a LBA, it is just an online letter printed out by the DCA and mailed to you. Safe to file under IGNORE!
  16. You can buy one for £1.00 as well!! It is at http://www.hllc dot co dot uk/online-letter.php They are selling these so that these insects can use it to try to scare uninformed people
  17. I hope that some of you will visit me should they lock me up because I speak my mind!! I told the adjudicator that I do not believe they are un-biased. She said they ARE neutral and me replying then the only alterantive is that they are completely incompetent!! Well, it is either the one or the other!! It is stratight forward and as simple as it come! When I want to redirect her to the webpages of the FOS she ask why. I told that I want her to read what a redress constitute of and what cummulative payments means! She told me she know how to do a redress. Huh??? Now what is the problem then miss! Well I do not hold back and she said she can understand that I am frustrated. Replying I am not frustrated but angry because it is so simple and for them to be unable to get even something as simple as this right is wasting my time! At least I gave her a good "start" to her day because she has hardly sat down for the morning and her computer wasn't switched on yet! The bottom line is that I will send her the outstanding statements and the spreadsheet with the redress so that it completely clear to any brain dead person, even an PPI adjudicator! I will insist that should she still reject this then she HAS to tell me why she is not using cummulative payments. The thing about her reply and what you have said is why don't they come out and state that you cannot use the principle? Then you can argue you can and they can state you can't. At least that is a proper difference of opinion. Stating that the premiums did not caused the charges while the biggest idiot (even my good friend Vladimir Putin the new 007!) can see that it is the case, is a ridiculous way to back up their friends, the greedy banks!
  18. What is the basic quality an adjudicator has? Primary Scholl and anything higher, doesn't seems to the case to me!! I had a very, very good decision for a non-PPI claim but 2 brain dead idiotic PPI decisions. The lates is the HSBC charges one. Well at least she accepted the fact that they should refund any charges on the current account that is a result of the PPI premiums but she decided none of my charges is a result the PPI premiums!! The bank only provided statements back to 2005 (say they do not have the rest but I do not buy it! They send the rest to me last year dating back a looong time, so I will send it to her. Why didn't she asked me for the satements???). Then she stated a couple of examples, I was &68 over my limit but the PPI premiums was &48, therefore I am not over my limit as a result of the PPI premiums!!! What about the premiums of the month before, the one before, the ones of the year before and the year before and the year before and..... as well as the interest, charges, interest on charges, interset on interst, etc.?? She doen't seem to understand the concept of CUMMULATIVE, high school stuff! Well I am going to give her a mouth full but I am a bit stuck here. Actually the whole case is a bit hayward, HSBC made some very good offers on the PPI, all of them with substantial interest. She only adjudicate on the charges, therefore the offer of the PPI still stands and it seems if it go off to the ombudsman then then it will only be about the charges. I thought they should adjudicate on the issue as a whole? I like the way in which they do this although I believe they do it wrong based on my experience with the credit cards. I will be trying to get the PPI refunded while the charges drag on but I am not sure whether I will be able to pull that off. I am also extremely weary to explain to her what is what because it will be an utter waste of time based on another case. This one is regarding CrapOne. During the time that I took out the card CrapOne had some significant failings in their procedures and was fined by the FSA. The first point and one that the FSA considered to be the most serious was that CrapOne send out only a summary and not the policy document. The FSA made it very clear in their fine that a company must produce the whole policy document PRIOR to the sale. (This document is actually a very good basis for anyone that want to take a bank/CC to court regarding mis-sold PPI). Waht did the adjudicator say, the summary is sufficient and that CrapOne di not mis-sold the policy? Send it back to her with the FSA document stating clearly that the CC must produce the whole policy document prior to the sale. Came back that although they say it she thinks I had sufficient info prior to the sale. I asked for the full policy document and find a number of issues in the policy document (which are not in the summary) that could have influence my decision whether to take it out. I point them all out to her. Wasted a couple of weeks and come back that I could have cancelled the policy within 30 days aand that it left me sufficient time to study the policy document AFTER the sale!!! It seems no matter which facts and statements I put in fron of her, she kept on telling that they look at cases individually and accept that the FSA fine CrapOne for producing only the summary, but she believe I had sufficient info before the sale (the summary)!! Needless to say, I have lost all confidence in the PPI adjudicators, they are either incompetent or on the take! I have 2 other cases left, they are not mis-sold cases, they are no-sold cases. I did not ticked the box for applying for the PPI, therefore they issued the PPI wiyhout me applying for it. I am just waiting for the PPI adjudicators to find the policies was not mis-sold and the CC's was squeky clean!!
  19. Give the creep 10 seconds to get off your property or you will call the Police to get him/her arrested for trespassing!! They have ZERO legal right to do a home visit and the same principles apply for any unwanted visitors, if you tell them to leave then they have to leave!! It is very unlikely to materialise but do not take any crap from any one stupid enough to try it!
  20. Definitely, but what the response will be will vary. Some will do it, others will refund the charges but refuse to remove the default (CrapOne an example) and some will just be stubborn idiots (like RBS) and refuse both. Therefore if you get success then your battle will be over much sooner and easier. You can even alter your request and ask for the charges + interest and default removal even if you have already referred it to the FOS. While writing it is worthwhile pointing out to them that the FOS will reward the charges, interest and default removal should they upheld it. Off course, they know it but they hope you don't!! If you point it out then they know that you know and that you will accept no less. Why CC's like CrapOne refuse to remove the default is a bit difficult for me to understand. The adjudicator said that he believes that should they remove the default then they will basically accept responsibility. Why not do that as another "Goodwill Offer" because the risk of not removing it is much higher. If they pay back all the premiums, interest, charges and charges interest and remove the default, certainly most people will accept that and call it a day? Risking losing all that going through a lengthy process to claim damages is risky!
  21. Depends how strong your case is but if the balance was zero at date of default then you can also ask for damages as a result of this illegal default. You will have to quantify it though, higher interest paid on mortgage or mortgage application would be denied and have to pay rent, etc. A bit of caution here .... These companies come back with offers of "good will", if you accept that then they claim no responsibility and some nasty ones (like CrapOne) can refuse to remove the default (even if it is purely their fault and that the default is illegal) and you can also not claim damages. In these cases you will need to refuse their "extremely good will" (what a joke) and refer it to an adjudicator to decide. This can be tricky because they can easily find in the CC favour. Whether you want to refer it will depend on the strength of the case. RBS came back to me with their "good will offer" and they said that they will redress the account according to the FOS guidelines. I told them in no uncertain terms what they can do with themselves seeing that I did not apply for the PPI!! Therefore there is no change for them that they can win (if the FOS decide it was fine then I am sure a judge won't) and that they should accept responsibility and also make an offer for all the instances of fraud committed by them (I did not apply and therefore they took these premiums without my approval and that is fraud!), say equal to the outstanding amount? They should also remove the default and then pay me the rent that I was paying for the time the default was on my credit file because I will not get a mortgage with their illegal default. The adjudicator actually agreed with me but stated that she have to do her own investigation first, which is off course correct. This will also be extremely interesting to see what is going to happen! I also put the CRA's on notice regarding this and told them to remove the default, which they won't do off course!! As soon as I have a successful outcome then each one of them will receive a "Demand for Payment" letter as well!
  22. HSBC came back with offers for the PPI and frankly they were good, they offer higher than what I was asking for. I told the adjudicator that I want them to refund the charges and remove the defaults. Told me she will contact HSBC but no answer yet, will be interesting!!
  23. My experience with Barclaycard was very good and they paid me everything I asked for, far better than any other CC or banks! Hopefully you will get a good response from them.
  • Create New...