Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

NR/Wallers Claimform - £29k Pers Loan *DISCONTINUED*


womble72
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5639 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Ben/Paul,

 

I did try on adobe but could not find the advance tool.

Also my mouse packed up on me last night, so i will give it another go when i get home.

If i try to scan 3 documents minus my name,etc i will try to upload them on photobucket for you to check.

These letters are a default, formal, and my orginal contract.

If you think that could help me with my defence i.e wording could be wrong.

I will give it a try later when i get home.

 

Regards

 

Womble

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Womble

 

 

it would give us an idea of what(if anything) they are possibly going to produce . we can also see if what you have is compliant with the law

 

it would give us a head start for sure

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Evening Everbody,

 

Well i took you guys advice and used posted notes.:)

 

The information is of the following,

 

Contract (front and back page)

 

Two letters- default and formal

 

Lastly- The court papers.

 

happy reading and let me know if it can help my defense.

 

P.s This is the paperwork i took to the cab.

 

Here are the links

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd235/womble1988/img008.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd235/womble1988/img007.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd235/womble1988/img006.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd235/womble1988/img003.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd235/womble1988/img002.jpg

 

Yet again many thanks for your help

 

Womble

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Womble,

 

i am mulling over hte Default, i have a issue with it

 

it says "in accordance with clause 4 of your agreement"

 

well looking at image no 3, i am assuming they are your conditions which the default is refering to

 

this is what i need to clarify

 

Regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

right ok,

 

well, the agreement looks ok so we will ask someone to run the figures and see if they are ok.

 

the particulars of claim States 7 days for the default of 1130.49 yet the default notice states 14 days for 862.97 which is a bit of a cock up on their part.

 

we dont know what they are going to come up with document wise so lets not worry too much just yet

 

at least we know what they may have

Link to post
Share on other sites

the figures don't match between the default notice and particulars of claim.

 

I would definatly like to see their break down in terms of charges etc.

 

the bad news is, notwithstanding the maths (which someone else should do... I am terrible with maths), the credit agreement you have seems enforceable to me. Not entirely properly executed, but enforceable.

 

What were your circumstances leading up to the court case?

 

(EDIT: Pauls point is valid, however, I am not convinced that it would really help you. Even if the default notice were incorrect, AFAIK, all they would have to do is discontinue the case, issue a new default notice, and start the case again. )

  • Haha 1

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tom

 

 

i looked at clause 4 referred to in the Default notice and it does not appear to be the clause relating to payments if you look at the terms and conditions

 

this i dont think complies with Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices)

Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) i may be wrong but s3 states

 

3

A specification of:--

(a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and

(b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of; and either

© if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date, being a date [not less than

fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken; or

(d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and

the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid.

 

would this not be relevent?

 

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tom

 

....

 

would this not be relevent?

 

 

regards

paul

 

Hi paul,

 

as i said, it is a valid point, but ultimatly even if the default is invalid, the claimant would be able to discontinue the action, issue a new default, and then continue the action.

 

this is the same as errors with a notice of assignment.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

also the copy that womble has posted is his copy Tom no the copy that they have sent him,

 

i wasnt sure if you were aware of this

 

Well, they will probabliy send him exactly the same default notice... After all, they only sent it a month ago, even they can't be that daft:)

 

if they are different, that's a problem for the judge. My deepest concern is the fact they simply don't appear to know how much the OP actually owes. there are discrepancies all over the show.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi tom,

 

yeah but it is also the credit agreement which was wombles own copy, so if they have lost it or mislaid it then they are up the creek without a paddle

 

thats what i was looking at

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening Chaps,

 

Reading your messages i am not to sure where i stand now with a defence.

 

If my copy is enforcable am i in big trouble defending this case now ?

 

The figures may be incorrect but is this enough for my defence.

 

Womble

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...