Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm at work now but promise to look in later. Can you confirm how you paid the first invoice?  It wasn't your fault if the signal was so poor and there was no alternative way to pay.  There must be a chance of reversing the charge with your bank.  There are no guarantees but Kev  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09766749/officers  has never had the backbone to do court so far.  Not even in one case,  
    • OK  so you may not have outed yourself if you said "we". No matter either way you paid. Snotty letter I am surprised that they were so quick off the mark threatening Court. They usually take months to go that far. No doubt that as you paid the first one they decided to strike quickly and scare you into paying. Dear Chuckleheads  aka Alliance,  I am replying to your LOCs You may have caught me the first time but that is  the end. What a nasty organisation you are. You do realise that you now have now no reason to continue to pursue me after reading my appeal since you know that my car was not cloned. Any further pursuit will end up with a complaint to the ICO that you are breaching my GDPR.  Please confirm that you have removed my details from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't gone for a snotty letter this time as they know that you paid for your car in another car park. So using a shot across their bows .  If it doesn't deter them and they send in the debt collectors or the Court you will then be able to get more money back from them for  breachi.ng your data protection than they will get should they win in Court-and they have no chance of that as you have paid. So go in with guns blazing and they might see sense.  Although never underestimate how stupid they are. Or greedy.
    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
    • Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant.
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Gmac -i Want My Life + Money Back


judi3
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5200 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

The fees and charges impacted are:-

  • Charges for non-payment of the monthly mortgage payment by direct debit when the account was in arrears and no monthly mortgage payment was being made.
  • A portion of the solicitor’s instruction fee (£39) that exceeded the actual cost.
  • Early Repayment Charges applied to, arrears fees and charges.
  • A flat rate of interest of 8% will be added to the amounts due to customers.
  • No other fees or charges that may have been applied to your account are affected by this and no further refunds are due.

Upon reading the fsa publication i believe i have been affected by

 

failed to ensure that mortgage servicing staff had an adequate understanding of and implemented the requirement to treat customers fairly in handling its mortgage arrears and repossessions

 

focussed on the collection of payment of arrears over a short period of time within fixed mandates, rather than always establishing a suitable arrangement based on the customer’s individual circumstances

 

sometimes issued proceedings for repossession before all alternatives to repossession had been considered and accordingly, did not always use litigation only as a last resort

 

Field counsellors were engaged by GMAC to visit customers to discuss their mortgage arrears and to consider available options. GMAC regularly reviewed mortgage account servicing, but outcomes in arrears and repossessions focussed on quantitative measurements, such as the average number of days to get to court order, and did not provide any qualitative assessments of performance or TCF.

 

However, the guidance concentrated on information provision and establishing the reason for arrears in dealings with customers rather than a consideration of all appropriate arrears rehabilitation tools.

 

Options available to GMAC included alterations to the payment date, repayment type, extension to the term of the mortgage, capitalisation of arrears or a switch to a different mortgage product. These were considered if requested by the customer, but would not be routinely offered as an option by GMAC. A review of training programmes for mortgage servicing staff indicated that, prior to changes introduced in November 2008, arrears resolution centred on collecting payments via an ATP, with insufficient assessment of the viability of the ATP or whether there were other options to resolve the arrears situation that would produce a better outcome for the customer.

 

Applications for immediate repossession orders were frequently made by GMAC without evidence that all other viable options had been considered and that repossession was being used only as a last resort.

 

 

calculation and imposition of the Early Repayment Charge on mortgage balances which included arrears fees and charges within that balance; and

 

The above charges were unfair because they did not accurately reflect the additional administration work to the mortgage account caused by the fact that the customer was in arrears.

 

9

This led to a risk that the firm’s systems and controls were insufficient in relation to the handling and oversight of mortgage arrears to ensure the fair treatment of customers, and accordingly, the firm was in breach of Principle 3.

5.3.

 

Principle 6 requires that a firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. In doing so, firms should ensure that customers are treated fairly if they are in arrears with their mortgage by being flexible in considering a customer’s individual circumstances to ensure that the firm uses court action for repossession of a customer’s home only as a last resort

 

In focussing mainly on the collection of payment of arrears rather than always considering what may be a more suitable arrangement based on the customer’s circumstances and in issuing proceedings for repossession before all alternatives to repossession had been considered, the firm failed to pay due regard to the interests of some of its customers

 

In addition, GMAC did not treat its customers fairly as a result of applying certain charges and fees to customers’ accounts that were unfair as they did not accurately reflect the additional cost of administering an account in arrears in breach of MCOB 12.4.1R and 13.3.1

 

This resulted in some customers incurring excessive and unfair charges (i.e. charges that were not a reasonable estimate of the costs of the additional administration required as a result of the customer being in arrears) and accruing additional costs that could have been avoided had GMAC adopted a more flexible and fairer approach to arrears management tailored to the customer’s individual circumstances.

 

In determining the appropriate sanction, the FSA has had regard to the seriousness of the contraventions, including the nature of the requirements breached, the number and duration of the breaches, and the number of customers who suffered financial loss

 

the failings persisted over a significant period of time and impacted a large number of customers some of whom already had an adverse credit status;

(2) a portion of GMAC’s lending was to the sub-prime sector and arrears rates in this sector are higher than those in the rest of the mortgage market; and

 

I sold my home for £19k less than it was worth after i received a repossesion hearing . I Repaid 1 month before the erc was to be waived £3600 .

 

I would like help to fight for my money back any help advice would be so much appreciatedhttp://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

I am one of the customers

 

The FSA said a number of serious failings by GMAC-RFC were identified in relation to its dealings with customers experiencing arrears and repossessions. The investigation covered the period between October 31 2004 and November 30 2008.

The failings included excessive and unfair charges for customers that did not reflect administration costs; proposing repayment plans that did not always consider a customer’s individual circumstances; and starting repossession proceedings before fully considering all the alternatives.

 

I understand that i will be receiving

 

Our regulator the Financial Services Authority (FSA) have identified that certain mortgage arrears fees and charges paid by current and previous mortgage account holders should be refunded because the fee or charge exceeded the actual cost to us.

Certain mortgage arrears fees and charges will be refunded in full and others in part. Refunds will also include 8% interest.

Edited by judi3
erc
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you add compounded interest at 8% then it will be more....you should really get back contractual interest, that to me would be fair...but to give you an example a £50 charge on 1st January 2006 would now be worth £65 - Have a look here and work them out - Bank Charges Reclaiming: They’re unlawful! Inc. free letters ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks letter sent off asking for the charges and erc with a note that if i go to court i will also go for substantial damages , standard reply fri thank you wait four weeks will keep you posted :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Just Rang Them Asked For A Total Breakdown How They Dreamed Of This Offer And Advised That I Am Not Accepting It . Acknowledged That My Letter Dated 03 Nov Was With Them .

 

Just Emailed And Will Send Recorded Tommorrow Confirmation That I Do Not Accept And Also Letter Before Action Sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

spoke with them this morning and told them from 2002 to 2008 i could not pay be direct debit because i had no current account only a building society cheque book

because od defaults and ccj also i was paying into a debt managemt program

i told them £65 pounds a month over 5 years

and having arrears of £2700 and taken to court was unfair as i had tp represent myself

i tld the juge i was able to get for a while 4 hours extra in work to help clear the defecit

wish everyone luck with gmac as the highly polished dont frget they will ave on in house training courses for this amd

had we scripted sheets

i am claiming hardship

will call them friday

see what they say then

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Advised i did not accept the offer i have waited 7 weeks for a reply to my complaint .

 

part of reply

 

To this end in an attempt to bring about a speedy and amicble resolution of your commitment to your mortgage whilst you experienced difficulties i feel a refund of £359.70 (plus the £119.88 first offer ) is a more than fair and reasonable . full and final settlement

 

this letter concludes stage1 of our internal complaints if you are dissatisfied contact again

 

I Have rung to advice that i remain dissatisfied the complaint handler wants his senior manager to telephone me to try and not go into second stage complaint .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...