Jump to content

theoldrouge

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    2,929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

theoldrouge last won the day on November 12 2016

theoldrouge had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

787 Excellent

About theoldrouge

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Don't worry, they can only report the true position of the account There is no longer any arrangement The purpose of the PAP is to resolve, or narrow disputes prior to, or to avoid Court procedures, so the invalid default needs to be introduced at this stage
  2. Reasons for dispute Yourself, Illegible returns to your s78 requests, invalid default Husband, incomplete return to his s78 request, invalid default Request ALL documents, including required,necessary default notices from the Original Creditor Let them chew over that
  3. You are going to have to stop worrying about their meaningless threats, and concentrate on your forthcoming complaints To recap, what have they legally got? An illegible agreement with the majority of the t&cs missing, and a default notice they cobbled together, which although serves a purpose for yourself, is otherwise total garbage. Now as to your complaints, for this account only, The date you agreed the initial reduced payments with MBNA The EXACT amount outstanding at that date The EXACT monthly payment The first date on which you altered that agreed payment The new monthly payment AND also the previously requested documents please
  4. If possible could you post up the exact wording of your email terminating your agreement please
  5. You are getting way,way in front of any need to worry Just let it get defaulted, post up the requested information so we can see all the various complaint options Could you also post up the CCA return for this particular account please
  6. Well at least it’s some progress Can’t see they can “sell” you anything, or charge you for a years extension Going by your original post, this may well prove sufficient Let’s see what they have to say in their call
  7. What are your aims here? Do you wish to keep the car and are you in a financial position to do so? Would you be able to make a satisfactory offer for a time order? The agreement is of course non compliant with both s99/100 cca1974 and the 2010 cca regulations They cannot make up your termination rights Under s99 you can terminate from day one of the agreement However they have terminated a non compliant agreement
  8. Get the formal complaint off asap Incorporate the FCA guidance and fully set out your case Bear in mind they have to follow the guidelines which plainly they are not in your case https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg13-07.pdf If link not working Google FCA interest only mortgages Use para 3.5
  9. Formal written complaint to HSBC, and off to the FOS if they refuse or ignore
  10. The judge basically found detriment to the consumer was caused by Clients were not given sufficient information as to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement required by law; There were no major credit checks made as to the affordability of the repayments such as income versus outgoings reports; The length of the loan agreements were not explained, with client under the impression that they were for two years; Clients were pressured into signing these agreements; False representations were made to clients relating to the financial impact of regulated agreements; Clients were subject to long high pressure sales tactics to purchase the timeshares; Clients were sold timeshares which were not appropriate for them; Vulnerable consumers were treated inappropriately; Concerns about commission arrangements and disclosure thereof. This will certainly bring into question any timeshare based loan through a broker being authorised or not issued by BPF
  11. Below is the decision of the UTT Barclays obviously had a lax policy in dealing with unauthorised brokers In addition the court accepted that consumer detriment was caused and the case has been returned to the FCA to review its decision to validate the agreements The judgment contains a lot of information useful to yourself if Sunterra Tenerife Sales were not authorised, regarding regulations at the time of sale to you 2008, under s149 CCA 1974, which would have applied at that time https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b619143ed915d4b53bfc5e4/PLAXEDES_CHICKOMBE_AND_44_OTHERS_v_FCA___BPF.pdf
  12. first forget about where and why they sold the car You owned a property, they took the route of least resistance Similarly the mileage irrelevant to your current situation The problem here is you believed or were advised that you had a defence to the claim eight years ago. Whilst there is no time limit to set aside a judgment , the court would want to know a) why you did not submit your defence at the time given you had the opportunity, b) you have known about the judgment for eight years, but have done nothing about it till now Burying your head in the sand would not be an acceptable reason I cannot on the face of the facts see a good enough reason to attempt to set aside the judgment Your best route is to mitigate the amount owing by reclaiming the insurances However let's see the rest of the paperwork you hold especially the default notice and the exact date of repossession
  13. Worth email to BPF and ask them to confirm in writing whether or not Sunterra authorised/ licensed to broker credit for BPF at time of signing agreement
×
×
  • Create New...