whitelist
-
Posts
232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Posts posted by whitelist
-
-
-
Makes sense if you also had a doorstep loan from Provident. Believe Provident and Vanquish are in the same group of companies.
My loan in my past with provident was written off and credit files deleted.
-
Had a loan with this company about six years ago and all paid back, but just got this?
Dear
Scheme Reference Number:
We are contacting you because according to our records you may have received a loan from Everyday Loans, George Banco or TrustTwo, or have guaranteed a loan made from George Banco or TrustTwo to someone else, on or before 31 March 2021, and we have some important information for you.
Who are we? We are Everyday Lending Limited (“ELL”), a company within the Non-Standard Finance plc group that trades as Everyday Loans, George Banco and TrustTwo.
Why are we getting in touch? ELL believes that some of the historical lending of Everyday Loans, George Banco and TrustTwo was unaffordable and as a result some customers are entitled to compensation. However, ELL does not have enough money to pay this compensation in full. We are therefore proposing to use a legal process called a ‘scheme of arrangement’ (the “Scheme”) to settle any eligible compensation claims.
Are you affected? Subject to certain limited exceptions, you will be affected if, on or before 31 March 2021:
(A) you were a borrower of Everyday Loans, George Banco or TrustTwo who took out a loan which you may not have been able to afford, and the right checks were not carried out at the time; or
(B) you were a guarantor for a loan someone else took out and either (1) the loan you were guaranteeing should not have been made to the borrower because the borrower could not afford to repay it and the right checks were not carried out, or (2) you should not have been accepted as a guarantor because you may not have been able to afford to make payments under the guarantee and the right checks were not carried out; or
(C) if you were a borrower or guarantor as above, and you have some other kind of claim in connection with an activity that took place on or prior to 31 March 2021 in relation to your loan or guarantee (for example because you believe you have been treated unfairly or unreasonably in relation to your loan or guarantee for reasons other than affordability).
How does this impact you? As mentioned above, ELL does not have enough money to pay compensation in full to those people affected. Under the terms of the Scheme, ELL is looking to settle any eligible claims at a reduced amount. Customers with eligible compensation claims are estimated to receive a cash return of between 22% and 28% of their claim, after the exercise of any rights they may have to reduce their outstanding balance with ELL in satisfaction, or partial satisfaction, of their claim.
In addition, for the scheme to be successful, it will need to be sanctioned by the court. It is also dependent on a wider restructuring of the Non-Standard Finance group completing which will provide the new money needed to fund the scheme. If the Scheme was not successful, ELL and the other members of the Non-Standard Finance plc group will enter into insolvency processes. In an insolvency process of ELL, which is likely to be an administration, it is expected that ELL would stop operating and the business be wound down. If that were to be the case, then customers with eligible compensation claims would receive a significantly smaller % cash return on any claim (estimated to be approximately 0.2% of their claim).
Where can I find more information about the Scheme and how I may be affected? For further details about the Scheme, please refer to our document called the Practice Statement Letter (“PSL”). The PSL includes more detail on why we are proposing this Scheme; who will be affected; what happens to eligible compensation claims if the Scheme is successful and what the alternative is if it is not. The PSL can be found at www.nsfclaims.co.uk and we recommend that you read the full version of the PSL as it provides important information and more detail about the scheme.
There is also further important information within the PSL for you to consider, including details of our proposals for voting on the Scheme.
In addition, our Scheme website at www.nsfclaims.co.uk will be kept up to date with all the latest information about the Scheme.
What Now? At this stage we want to let you know that if, based on the information provided, you want to object to our proposals for voting arrangements, then please send details to the Customer Advocate at [email protected]. You may also attend and speak at the Court hearing which is expected to be held on 28 April 2023 (details of how to attend will be provided on the Scheme website: www.nsfclaims.co.uk).
However, you are not required to do anything at this stage and if the Court allows us to go ahead then we will contact you with further information about the process.
We hope that the PSL provides you the information you need, but if you have any further questions, please read our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on our dedicated Scheme website: www.nsfclaims.co.uk. You can also email us at [email protected] or call us on 0330 045 0685 if you have any questions, any problems accessing the PSL or FAQ’s or if you would like to request a hard copy of the PSL or the FAQs posted on the Scheme website free of charge.
You have received this correspondence by email. As we have an email address on file for you, we will send future Scheme correspondence to you via email, unless you email us at [email protected] or call us on 0330 045 0685 to advise of an alternative. Please ensure you provide the scheme reference number in any correspondence so we can correctly identify you.
Yours faithfully,
Everyday Lending Limited -
Well, if you are unwilling to even consider that advice, it will get very expensive for you in the civil courts.
My advice will be to note the previous posters and try to settle and avoid the legal process if you were responsible for the loss and harm.
Courts deal with facts, not emotion or goodwill and have a tendency to bite you on the ass, no matter how well intended
-
Not time wasting as it is all about liability and reasonable control of a dog
-
If your dog causes an accident such as running out in front of a car, then it has to be reported to the police.
There is no such legal obligation with a cat
-
In Tort law, they classed a dog as property and you maintain that property so you do not cause an act or omission that causes harm to another.
-
Can you name another way of keeping the dog under reasonable control?
Remember you need to think how a Judge will look at this and the reasonable man test.
-
When exercising your dog in public you keep it on either a short or extended leash. That is reasonable control
-
The point being made is that the OP said it was not illegal to exercise your dog in public and not keep the animal under reasonable control
The legislation referenced states different if a person was injured.
In the OP's case and the Cat, if they proved it on the balance of probability the OP is responsible, he will be liable for Civil Redress with any quantified loss
-
That article is referencing a High Court case so sets a legal precedent that is in addition to primary legislation and reasonable control.
Will now retire from this debate
A dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person or assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so, (section 10(3) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991).
-
Royal Mail warn dog owners could face 5 YEARS in prison if their pet bites a postal worker
WWW.THETELEGRAPHANDARGUS.CO.UK
Royal Mail have warned dog owners to make their letterboxes ‘no-go zones’ for their pets following a High Court ruling in the company’s…The High Court ruling states that dog owners could spend up to five years in prison under the Dangerous Dog Act, if they fail to take preventative measures
-
Never said your dog was dangerous, only what legislation states
-
In reality, people's experience with keeping dogs means squat.
The Law treats everybody with equal contempt
Have posted the legislation for reference rather than personal opinions
The legislation specically references reasonable control. Being off the lead you have no control
-
On the day of 28th of January my dogs were being exercised off the lead and supervised on a public path which is not illegal and they did not enter your property.
It is very much illegal if you cannot keep a dog under reasonable control. That means a leash in public.
They amended the Dangerous Dogs Act, which includes your own property to protect people such as the postman who deliver
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK
An Act to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable... -
Thanks for the confirmation
-
Have no debts myself, so just a question of interest?
1. Creditor defaults an account, sells balance to a debt collection agency (DCA) and account recorded with the credit agencies marked as closed.
2. DCA records the defaulted account and balance in their name.
3. Debtor enters a payment plan with the DCA.
Normally, a defaulted account will drop off a credit file six years after the original creditor recorded it.
Two questions to ask?
(a) So after six years, that defaulted account drop off with a payment plan in place, or?
(b) Will the DCA simply mark the account as not defaulted and record the balance as a live account with the credit agencies?
-
All I can add is to reject the vehicle and reasons for in writing. Email to the garage will be sufficient before the 30 days is up as a cause of action and proof for your own protection.
-
At the end of the day, whatever a person posts needs to be taken as token advice, even with good intentions.
Submitting a claim through the civil courts is not as easy as it sounds. Unlike criminal courts where the decision is on reasonable doubt, civil courts are on the balance of probability.
It is for the claimant to prove their case, not for the respondent to defend. You cannot use the courts for a phisshing expedition to prove your case. You submitted the issue to a claims company who has ruled against you,
But it is your decision if you wish to continue with civil action
-
Most civil contracts have the force majeure term inserted to limit liability when unforeseeable circumstances prevent fulfilling a contract.
-
It will either be a repayment schedule or they will simply alter your tax code so you pay it back via paying a little more tax through your income.
-
1
-
-
Years ago had an overpayment with Housing Benefit plus a few loans through Universal Credit. Originally did not declare my occupational pension taken at 55. Honest mistake on my part never claiming benefits before but was technically of failure to report a change in circumstances. To be fair they were very good and set up a monthly direct debit after an income and expenditure assessment. They are not out to crucify the average claimant as theu recognise honest mistakes happen. They are more interested in the professional fraudster. Nine times out of ten all that wil happen is pay back any overpayment with comfortable amounts. As stated previously, be honest as they already know the answers to any questions they ask.
-
Lowell made an offer in writing
She accepted that offer in writing
consideration made with repayment schedule over 12 months.
Legal undertakings established.
A contract can be oral.
-
This is not my debt and it will be wrong to make any decision on her behalf. You have to respect her choice
Lowell have agreed a contract in writing to be debt free in 12 months as long as payments are maintained
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Dangerous Dogs Act dogs attacked a cat ? did they - discussion posts moved here
in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
Posted
That is criminal law under the Crown Prosecution service, not civil. And you are an alleged perpetrator, not a victim. The Cat owner is the alleged victim through your own alleged negligence.