Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • 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

negligent/irresponsible lending?


d77
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4800 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

Advice, please?

I feel that LloydsTSB and Black Horse Personal Finance have colluded, and exacerbated a situation entered into with SPML

This is going to sound like the intro to an x-factor audition, get your violins ready...

2 years of Prozac-fog ended last November, and I am now lucid, and really quite angry. Feel free to slap me down if I’m just whinging.

The Prozac episode followed a very messy repossession and subsequent breakdown. To be honest, if I hadn’t been so blinkered about pre-existing medical conditions and PPI, the Prozac would have happened much sooner.

In 2002, Abbey National reached the end of their tether with our sporadic mortgage payments (Husband came out of work, I was working part time...) they went for repossession over arrears of £800. Fair play to them.

In stepped the saviours that are Capstone/SPML, and confirmed a remortgage to cover the loan, arrears, court costs etc. Seemed a great idea at the time, hindsight’s a wonderful thing. The honeymoon period was great, the monthly payments were only slightly higher than the Abbey ones (the ones we couldn’t maintain). Honeymoon over, and the introductory rate bounced up, the payments rose from something in the region of £200 to over £400 per month (I don’t have the exact figures, this was pre-prozac, there’s a good chance that the paperwork is stuffed down the side of a sofa somewhere.)

LloydsTSB were ever so good, there was a little button on the internet banking screen that said ‘increase overdraft’, so a cycle began of us missing a monthly payment or two, getting a nasty letter from SPML, and increasing the overdraft, paying off the arrears, and starting all over again. I got a bit fed up of forever being in overdraft, and asked Lloyds for a loan to straighten everything up. Now, we didn’t fit the lending criteria for Lloyds....but, Black Horse ‘our sister company’ were happy to accept us. I think this is when it really started to go pear shaped.

The first loan with Black Horse was ‘only’ about £3000, and things ran smoothly for a while, we were on the edge of our income, so every time we had a vet bill, a domestic appliance die on us, or any other unexpected expense, we were back in the overdraft. We were both working, so Black Horse had no issues with increasing the loan when we got sick of the overdraft fees.

We ended up with an overdraft of £7500 before Lloyds asked what was going on. I was very clear with them that we were struggling to keep up with our outgoings, and they converted the overdraft to a special agreement of a separate loan, £75 a month, which we managed to pay every month because the due date was the same day as my wages. Over this period we had also been increasing the Black Horse loan, as SPML really liked sending out court claims for possession. I was also very clear with Black Horse as to the purpose for the extensions on the loan, I recall them actually speaking to SPML and coming to an agreement that SPML would agree to the loan being secured against the property, as long as their arrears were cleared first, before any other debt was repaid.

There was another instance where a family member paid off the arrears on the mortgage pending a further advance from Black Horse being transferred, there was full three way discussion between SPML, Black Horse and the family member at this point.

The house was repossessed in November 2008. I was ‘out of it’ to such an extent that I had just assumed that I would be able to ‘sort it out’ again, as had happened over the past 5 years or so.

Looking back, it might have been less stressful for everyone involved if Lloyds/Black Horse/SPML had not colluded and allowed us to build up the debts to such unmanageable levels. It seems in bad taste to say so, but if the repossession had taken place earlier, rather than Lloyds allowing further increases on the overdraft, Black Horse allowing further advances on the secured loan when the credit files showed that this was an on-going pattern, and SPML accepting several 11th hour payments, many people would be much healthier and happier today.

My question is, do I have a case for irresponsible lending? Irresponsible borrowing, certainly, I hold my hands up to that. We knew every time that we extended our borrowing that it was not a solution, only a stop-gap, but felt that mainstream lenders would reject us on the basis of our credit history.

The current situation:

Black Horse debt £29000- in default for 18mths, with no legal action to date.

SPML (sold the house under-value) £3000 owed due to mortgage shortfall, instalments agreed with Scotcall, but defaulted October 2010.

Lloyds closed the account January 2011, £5500 outstanding on the loan, £866 on the overdraft (£3600 at the time of the repossession) First solicitor’s letter received last week, demand for £266 overdraft overlimit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, chaps,

 

We realised pretty quickly into the contract with SPML that what they wanted was a fast reposession while there was value in the house...

 

My bugbear is the Lloyds/Black Horse fandango- Lloyds wouldn't consider a loan, but continued to increase the overdraft to a point where I owed over £10000 in my own name, Black Horse didn't give a damn what the loan was for- I used to work for RBS, and the rule was "If you can't pay your bills, how are you going to pay the loan?"

 

I'm continuing to read through OFT guidance on lending etc- just strikes me as odd that, apart from a default notice every six months or so, BH haven't attempted to recover the debt- do they know they were in the wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

D for default every month since June 2010. 6 for six months arrears for preceeding 6 months (although I don't think the payments were made for those months either) It's still registered on credit file as 'residential second mortgage'- bit odd, since there is nothing for it to be secured on (Spml/Acenden sold house under-value...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something on the news this morning about this

First bank in the UK to be fined for irresponsible lending

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12536174

 

Might be a few pointers in the article for you to have a chew on

 

Hi alf

 

Thanks for this. This is important and could be flagged more widely; 4 companies are mentioned and its a good general defence against being treated unfairly in mortgage arrears when old and interest only, which sadly applies to me.

 

x

 

v

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I wonder if somebody could please help me as I am now at the end of my tether

 

In February 2008, I took up a trial membership with a company called Club La Costa. At that time, both my wife and I were in full time employment and the terms seemed affordable. In May 2008, we went to Spain for the "Free Holiday" and attended the mandatory breakfast meeting. Although we were told this would take no more than an hour, we were with the company rep from 10am until almost 7pm getting the hard sell to upgrade to Full Membership.

 

I do suffer from some fairly major mental health issues and diabetes and despite telling them I needed to eat and rest, we were constantly assured that we could finish soon. After agreeing to go with the full membership package, finance was hastily arranged and my trial membership relinquished as part of the upgrade. Unfortunately, my circumstances had changed and I was no longer in full time employment. I informed the rep of this and after commiserating with me, we spoke about my future plans where I told him that I was planning to work as a self-employed training consultant.

 

After about 30 minutes of waiting, our new Fixed Term credit was arranged with GE Money who also provided the credit for the Trial Membership. I have often wondered how we got the credit approved with having lost my job and only this morning I waded yet again through the pile of documents CLC left us with to discover that I am listed as a self-employed training consultant and had been doing that job for a year(??) As the original credit arrangement with the same company, dated only 3 months earlier had clearly stated I was in full time employment, I would have expected the most cursory of checks to have picked that up and credit refused!

 

I have read the FSA regulations regarding negligent lending but I am unsure whether my own case could be considered so?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated... Please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if somebody could please help me as I am now at the end of my tether

 

In February 2008, I took up a trial membership with a company called Club La Costa. At that time, both my wife and I were in full time employment and the terms seemed affordable. In May 2008, we went to Spain for the "Free Holiday" and attended the mandatory breakfast meeting. Although we were told this would take no more than an hour, we were with the company rep from 10am until almost 7pm getting the hard sell to upgrade to Full Membership.

 

I do suffer from some fairly major mental health issues and diabetes and despite telling them I needed to eat and rest, we were constantly assured that we could finish soon. After agreeing to go with the full membership package, finance was hastily arranged and my trial membership relinquished as part of the upgrade. Unfortunately, my circumstances had changed and I was no longer in full time employment. I informed the rep of this and after commiserating with me, we spoke about my future plans where I told him that I was planning to work as a self-employed training consultant.

 

After about 30 minutes of waiting, our new Fixed Term credit was arranged with GE Money who also provided the credit for the Trial Membership. I have often wondered how we got the credit approved with having lost my job and only this morning I waded yet again through the pile of documents CLC left us with to discover that I am listed as a self-employed training consultant and had been doing that job for a year(??) As the original credit arrangement with the same company, dated only 3 months earlier had clearly stated I was in full time employment, I would have expected the most cursory of checks to have picked that up and credit refused!

 

I have read the FSA regulations regarding negligent lending but I am unsure whether my own case could be considered so?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated... Please.

 

Ok so basically your not a self employed training consultant? If not then the finance is void simple as. You are more than welcome to send me a private message for some more guidance.

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for your reply. I suspected this might be the case and I will certainly PM you if I may. My own research since making this post has shown me that this is a tactic that has been used by this company before and led to a claim being thrown out in the Manchester County Court in August last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...