Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Received this letter today after all this time !! Doesn’t sound like just a threat any advice please  Thanks  Photo.pdf
    • Good evening. Hoping to keep this short and concise. Any help really appreciated! Sent originated from council tax in 2019.  I moved address for a new career 240miles away in December 2019 and have lived here ever since.  A distant friend resides at previous address.  A CCJ was filed regarding this debt in January 2020 but no correspondence was received my end or at the old address.  Move forward to this year; early April I learn of a letter received from Bailiff - Notice of Enforcement dated 13/03. Stated I had ten days to settle a payment/payment plan or £75 will be added after ten days from 13/03 and bailiff instructed to visit.  Obviously I was unaware of this letter till well after the time period passed. Attempted to contact Dukes via email but zero response. Asked for breathing space in order to check the original debt with the respective council (I wasn’t awarded a week of Housing despite being on UC for a short period due to a contract date given by the old employer).  29/04 a note was left at the old address stating a bailiff had visited. New balance £310 more than original outstanding.  I’ve since contacted both the council and the bailiff agent to state I’m more than happy to settle the original debt over a payment plan but at this stage they will not remove the fees despite all correspondence not being sent to me and obviously me only seeing them much later than one would have expected.  Tried live chat today with the company and firstly was told the fees will remain because I spoke to the enforcement agent - I have never spoken to him/her.  secondly told the fees would remain because “I tried to use their web chat service to complete an income form” - I have zero recollection of doing this and I also wonder if it’s another tactic? any help on where I stand with the fees added would be incredible. Thank you
    • the evidence you have from Mercedes is perfect. simply write to both the finance company and the dealership that sold you the car, stating under the consumer rights Act 2015 should a fault appear outside of 6mts, it's for the consumer to prove the fault was present at time of sale. Please find enclosed a copy of said report from Mercedes at XXXX stating quite clearly that the windscreen was replaced on Date , some xxx months/years BEFORE my purchase on DATE. there is a bill to pay of XXX to XXX , i expect you to sort this out between yourselves , i am not liable for this. something upon those lines anyway.  
    • Not really. I just wrote it based upon my credit file data with screenshots and stuff.  Also referring to multiple data points. You need to read before sending or writing it.    I have plenty of experience in this stuff so takes me half hour to write something like this. For you itll take an afternoon probably. An additional day with it on your CRA wont cause a problem.     Reference Material; ICO Credit File Guide - https://ico.org.uk/media/your-data-matters/documents/1282/credit-explained-dp- guidance.pdf ICO Main Page For Credit - https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/credit/ CMF Limitation Act 1980 - https://www.checkmyfile.com/articles/the-limitation-act-1980-and-debt-time-limits.htm Gov Limitations Act 1980 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/2023-11-18 (Latest Version) Transunion 6 Years - https://www.transunion.co.uk/consumer/credit-report-help/how-long-does-information-stay-on-my-credit-report-for Equifax 6 Years - https://help.equifax.co.uk/EquifaxOnlineHelp/s/article/Howlongdoesadefaultedorsettledaccountstayinmyreport Experian 6 Years - https://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/guides/defaults.html#:~:text=A default will stay on,you still%20owe%20them%20money
  • 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

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4962 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

Sparkie, why are they writing to two different people?

 

If its because your are both on the loan, then why is it not addressed to both of you?

 

a) Is it a cost building excercise on their part? 2 x letter charges?

b) A balls up rush job?

 

So who have they given notice to?

 

The original doc or the copy?

 

I love the marrow in this bone...and j'adore apples!;)

 

I also have found a document that states 0.00 interest adjustments but my payments went up. You couldnt make it up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi Sparkie, good stuff! The OFT have seen a lot of stuff from me as you know! I also copied my latest FOS missive which included trading styles info to David Blocksidge. I have also encouraged them to share info with FOS and FSCS under their Memorandum of Understanding: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/FOS-OFT_MoU.pdf ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sparkie, good stuff! The OFT have seen a lot of stuff from me as you know! I also copied my latest FOS missive which included trading styles info to David Blocksidge. I have also encouraged them to share info with FOS and FSCS under their Memorandum of Understanding: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/FOS-OFT_MoU.pdf ;)

 

 

Way to go sweetjane, the more info the OFT have the more problems for Swift Advances Plc......its the OFT that can clobber them without a CCA licence at all they are to put it bluntly "knackered"

 

Got to get off now I have to take son in law to Manchester Airport at 4.00 in the morn. Lets see what tomoorrow brings.;)8-):)

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mornin everyone

 

I have just prepared another letter direct to David Blocksidge at the OFT, this one I cannot post because it contains some information that is so damming and explosive Swift Advances Plc and Swift First Ltd are not to be privy to it .................sorrry folks but it is so strong even to my standards, I'm telling you all about it to make you feel happy ( because you all should trust me) ;):Deven though it may make you curious, I will send folks a copy by e-mail if you send me your e-mail address.I'll be calling the OFT today about it also.

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in reply to Buster's earlier post about why two default notices would be issued on a joint named account. It's not a mistake or an attempt to extort further costs from the customers.

Creditors do this deliberately in order to try and ensure both account holders are aware of the default notice and have the opportunity to remedy the problem. In the cases I have seen only one fee is applied to the account as it is a fee for the default (usually a lot more than the fee for ordinary letters) rather than a fee for the letter.

In some cases where couples split up one might move out and set up redirection, if they were the first named person on the loan they would get all the correspondence and the one who stayed at the property could be blissfully unaware of mounting debts in their name.

The other (much more common) situation is that one of the two parties takes more responsibility for the finances and opens all the jointly addressed mail so, again, the other party knows nothing about the arrears.

Whilst it is in the interest of joint account holders that creditors do this so all parties are informed, it also serves the creditor's purposes if a party later tries to defend/delay court proceedings by saying they didn't know about the situation as the creditor can show individual defaults were issued.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i will work out how to post the whole document but in the mean time here is swift part.

 

 

Lender Location Commission Min Max

Swift 1st - £10,001-£30,000 - 80% LTV max inc PPP [A] All of UK 2.00% + 0.10%

Swift 1st - £100,001- £500,000 80% LTV max Inc. PPP [A] All of UK 1.25% + 0.10%

Swift 1st - £3,000-£10,000 - 80% LTV max inc PPP [A] All of UK 3.00% + 0.10%

Swift 1st - £30,001-£100,000 - 80% LTV max inc PPP [A

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blemain Finance - Plan A [C] Not Northern Ireland 0.50% + 0.10% Nil

Blemain Finance - Plan B [C] Not Northern Ireland 1.00% + 0.10% Nil

Blemain Finance - Plan C [A] Not Northern Ireland 1.25% + 0.10% Nil

Blemain Finance - Plan D [A] Not Northern Ireland 1.50% + 0.10%

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

It did open this time.

 

Interesting to note (but not surprised) Swift pay way more than anyone else - it makes complete sense then that they keep rates high to pay off the high commissions they pay - or should I say we pay off the high commissions they pay out

Link to post
Share on other sites

the one thing that stands out with this document is that it pays the broker a lot more money if he sells a sub prime loan,

 

how many people have sub prime loans because the broker wanted a better pay out.

 

how many of you are with swift and shouldn't be

 

Key

[A] = Non-Conforming Products

[C] = Conforming Products.

 

 

wp3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blemain Finance - Plan A [C] Not Northern Ireland 0.50% + 0.10% Nil

Blemain Finance - Plan B [C] Not Northern Ireland 1.00% + 0.10% Nil

Blemain Finance - Plan C [A] Not Northern Ireland 1.25% + 0.10% Nil

Blemain Finance - Plan D [A] Not Northern Ireland 1.50% + 0.10%

 

Thanks WP!

 

My agreement states £1,300 commission paid.

 

I haven't SAR them yet so don't know if there was secret commission too!

 

Cupcake

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks WP!

 

My agreement states £1,300 commission paid.

 

I haven't SAR them yet so don't know if there was secret commission too!

 

Cupcake

 

 

check it to see but i think i might say BROKERS FEE the commission in the document would be paid out on top of this.

 

wp3

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4962 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...