Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi on the notice of disqualification it lists the 2 speed offences and marks offence withdrawn? This is for both offences and then the other 2 is the MS90s which I’m fined for and the additional costs. R
    • Hi,    It has taken a while, but I have received an email from Auxillis -  hello, we are not dealing with this claim all we do is log accident for you isnurance - the claim has been passed to your underwriter markerstudy 0344 873 8183 as they are deal with fault cliams ion behalf of adrian flux. thankyou auxillis   I have made repeated attempts to phone Markerstudy in between working from home, struggling for energy and trying to find a cheap car so that I can keep my job (community support worker). Thankfully I have a supportive team and I am being given phone calls to make but it cant last too long. I had a severe migraine over the weekend and also have quite bad whiplash in my neck and back.    I found this in my insurance policy booklet -    Protection and Recovery If the insured vehicle cannot be driven following an incident leading to a valid claim under this section, we will pay: • the cost of its protection and removal to the nearest approved repairer, competent repairer or nearest place of safety; and • the cost of re-delivery after repairs to your home address; and • the cost of storage of the insured vehicle incurred with our written consent. If the insured vehicle is damaged beyond economical repair we will arrange for it to be stored safely at premises of our choosing. You should remove your personal belongings from the insured vehicle before it is collected from you. In the event of a claim being made under the policy we have the right to remove the insured vehicle to an alternative repairer, place of safety or make our own arrangments for re-delivery at any time in order to keep the cost of the claim to a minimum     I do about 20-25000 miles a year with the work I do, I have been getting quotes and putting that I have now have one accident and no no claims bonus and the cheap quotes from similar companies to markerstudy are more than double what i paid last year at 8-900 and aviva is offering 2600 which is simply out of my price range and more than the car i am looking at.  I am starting to wonder if it is even worth going ahead with the claim as i have no one to claim from. I have had no information from any of the enquiries I have made.  I have a full tank of vpower diesel in the car in the impound, i can strip it for parts and probably make what I will be offered by the insurance payout and get the money quicker.  As I have made contact and started the process can I back out, still keep my NCB and a claim free history? Also what happens with my injuries? I don't think there is any permanent damage but my dr refused to see me and just gave me a boat load of naproxen and codeine. What happens in the future if things don't get better and I cancelled this claim? Can you claim injuries off your own insurance because the other guy ran and you cant find him? I have tried to ask these questions off markerstudy but they keep me waiting for nearly an hour then end the call.    Thank you for your time and help.  It is really appreciated.  I am quite honestly on the floor, I have been really ill, in hospital, had nearly 6 months off work and only been back full time a few weeks and now this.  The fact the company you pay large sums of money to look after you in a time of need is also behaving criminally just makes you want to give up.    
    • Thanks for the response. Am I able to send you the documents I’ve received or can you message via instant message and I’ll send these? Reece
    • Regretfully it does. Have you actually seen any papers which show what you were charged with (rather than what you were convicted of)? It is unusual not to be “dual charged” but if you were not charged with both, you are where you are. If you had been charged with both offences and providing you were the driver at the time, you could, after performing your SD, have asked the prosecutor to drop the “Fail to Provide” (FtP) charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the speeding charges (you cannot be convicted of speeding unless you plead guilty as they have no evidence you were driving). You will have difficulty defending the FtP charges. In fact, it’s worse than that – you have no chance of successfully defending them at all because the reason you did not respond to the requests is because you did not receive them and that’s entirely your fault. No it’s not correct. Six months from 18/11/23 was 18/5/24 so, unless they were originally charged, the speeding offences are now “timed out.” There is one avenue left open to you. If you perform your SD you must serve it on the court which convicted you. You will then receive a date for a hearing to have the matters heard again. Your only chance of having the matters revert to speeding (and this is only providing you were the driver at the time of those offences) is to plead Not Guilty, attend court. When you get there you can ask the prosecutor (very nicely, explaining what a pillock you know you were for failing to update your  V5C) if (s)he is prepared to raise “out of time” speeding charges, to which you will offer to plead guilty if the FtP charges are dropped.   This is strictly speaking not lawful. Charges have to be raised within six months. Some prosecutors are willing to do it, others are not. But frankly it’s the only avenue open to you. There is a risk with this. I imagine you have been fined £660 (plus surcharge and costs) for each offence. The offence attracts a fine of 1.5 week’s net income and where the court has no information about the defendant’s means a default figure of £440pw is used.  If the prosecutor is not prepared to play ball you can revise your pleas to guilty. A sympathetic court should give you the full discount (one third) for your guilty pleas in these circumstances but they may reduce the discount somewhat. The prosecution may also ask for increased costs (£90 or thereabouts is the figure for a guilty plea). So it may cost you more if you have a decent income (I’ll let you do the sums). But MS90 is an endorsement code which gives insurers a fit of the vapours. One such endorsement will see your premiums double. Two of them will see many insurers refuse to quote you at all meaning you will have to approach "specialist" (aka extortionate) brokers. So you really want to exhaust every possibility of avoiding MS90s if you can. One warning: do not pay solicitors silly money to defend you. Making an SD before a solicitor should attract just a nominal sum (perhaps a tenner). That’s all you should pay for. You have no viable defence against the FtP charges and any solicitor suggesting you have is telling you porkies. The offer to do the deal is easily done by yourself and you can save the solicitor’s fees to put towards a few taxis and increased insurance premiums if you are unsuccessful. In the happy event you find out you were "dual charged", let me know and I'll tell you how to proceed. (Seems a bit odd hoping you were charged with four driving offences rather than two, but it's a funny old world!).    
    • Just the sort of people you despise eh Jugg  You would be much happier among your mates in that room with Rayner begging for votes 
  • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4973 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

Hi

I know that without issuing a default no further litigation can take place as the default has to include the remedy to negate the need for further action.

I have used the lack of a default to set asside CCJs in the past .

Don't know if that helps

 

Petr

 

Thanks again Peter,

 

They already have a judgement by default, so hopefully a set aside will happen. I am hoping that the additional fees and interest accrued after judgement will be dismissed, at least. But I do feel there should be some form of sanction against the bank for failing their duty under the Act.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Thanks again Peter,

 

They already have a judgement by default, so hopefully a set aside will happen. I am hoping that the additional fees and interest accrued after judgement will be dismissed, at least. But I do feel there should be some form of sanction against the bank for failing their duty under the Act.

Hi

It is certainly worth mentioning that you recieved no default notice and he credtitor has not ben able to provide a copy on request.

Also they are not allowed to charge post default interest unlessi it is on the agreement .

You could so course always apply for aset aside prior to court it will cost you 65 quid though.

 

Best of luck

Petr

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following a CCA request to Lowell re them stating the now own my partners Capital One debt, my partner has just recieved a letter from Lowell Financial which is music to my ears. It reads:

 

Dear Bloc,

 

Original Creditor: Capital One (Oh I thought you owned it now, had a change of heart have you?)

Balance Outstanding: £976.19

 

Following your recent request to be provided with a copy of the original credit agreement in respect of the Consumer Credit Act

 

After liaising with our client in an effort to obtain this document we have been advised that it is no longer available. (Oh well unenforcable debt then ha ha) Under the circumstances, we have closed our files in relation to this account which has now been returned to our client. We can confirm that no further contact will be made by us regarding this account.

 

We trust that the above clarifies matters for you. (It most certainly does)

 

Yours sincerely

 

Alison Sheherd

Customer Services

 

 

Game on now Capital One, with out the original agreement we owe you jack, and will also be reclaiming the charges and CI. This is going to get filed asap.

 

Happy days

 

Tanz

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi peter could you please comment on post 1336 please

 

thanks voyager9

 

HI I am a bit unsure of what type of credit they are offering, running credit fixed term ?? The term flexible credit arrangemnt is not to my knowledge mentioned in the act.

 

It might be worth asking them to clarify which section of the act covers the agreement .

 

Regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi peter yes sorry about that yes it was 7336 not 1336 deh :confused:

 

its running credit very similar to a credit card you have the funds on account and draw what you like up to maximum limit!

 

hope that helps

 

voyager9

nationwide settled in full 7/06/2007

 

yorkshire bank settled in full 15/06/2007

 

capital one filed at court 06/06/2007 acknowledged 15/6 defence received 30/6 AQ sent 2/7 with application for summary judgement--hearing date 18 sept foe defence to be struck out

 

cahoot filed at court 25/06/2007 to acknowledge default judgement granted 27/06###won###settled in full

 

HBOS filed at court acknowledged 20/06/2007 default judgement granted 16th july so won

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The agreement will only be binding on us when you have signed and returned the agreement to us and we have completed our final credit checks"

 

S59 - Agreement to enter future agreement void? Peter?

 

(also the fact that it doesnt state the credit limit for the flex loan and mentions the credit checks - pre contractual, as opposed to executed?)

 

Not sure if the statements of protection are correct

 

Cancellation rights?

 

Any thoughts on this anyone? I have the same wording on my Cahoot agreement, and am wondering if this makes it a pre-contractual agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hI

 

I have spent a great deal of time looking into section 59 and have had a great deal of conflicting advice from the OFT on the matter.

On the face of it the only agreements that are exempt from section 59 are (SI552) fixed sum agreements for the purchase of work tools and that comply with the quotaion regulations SI55 which are similar to the agreememt regulations.

However i have had it in writing that they apply to cancellable agreemnts that do not give recourse to excersise that option.

I get the feeling there is a big can of worms here that no one wants us to open.

 

Anyway whichever way you look at section 59 i can not see how it would not apply to the above and make the agreement void.

It is an agreement that porprts to bind a person to enter as

debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement.This in itself would make the agreement void and i for one would be very greatful if someone would test this.

As for credit limit they are alowed to issue just a statement that that will be aplied at a future date on a running agreement.

As for being pre-contractual i am not quite sure what is meant probalbly just me being thick but arn't all agreements going to look precontractual because of the lack of the debtors signature.

 

Best regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Peter, by pre-contractual I was meaning like an application form, in that the creditor is still reserving the right to refuse it using the wording above.

 

So you think the fact that they are binding the debtor to enter into a future regulated agreement in this way means it MAY be unenforceable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

peter if so, with your immense talent could you possibly please please please sugest a letter for us and we or at least i will gladly test the water so to speak but would need help lol

 

voyager9

nationwide settled in full 7/06/2007

 

yorkshire bank settled in full 15/06/2007

 

capital one filed at court 06/06/2007 acknowledged 15/6 defence received 30/6 AQ sent 2/7 with application for summary judgement--hearing date 18 sept foe defence to be struck out

 

cahoot filed at court 25/06/2007 to acknowledge default judgement granted 27/06###won###settled in full

 

HBOS filed at court acknowledged 20/06/2007 default judgement granted 16th july so won

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I think it may be void. This means never existed the creditor has no rights whatsoever under the contract.

No rights to share data to pursue monies under it's terms nada.

 

Regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

peter if so, with your immense talent could you possibly please please please sugest a letter for us and we or at least i will gladly test the water so to speak but would need help lol

 

voyager9

Hi

Would you email me on

[email protected]

 

There may be bigger issues and it would be as well to sort them out and get the facts straight before posting. (MIB)

 

Best regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

email on its way peter although not sure what you wanted me to put in it lol :D

 

voyager9

nationwide settled in full 7/06/2007

 

yorkshire bank settled in full 15/06/2007

 

capital one filed at court 06/06/2007 acknowledged 15/6 defence received 30/6 AQ sent 2/7 with application for summary judgement--hearing date 18 sept foe defence to be struck out

 

cahoot filed at court 25/06/2007 to acknowledge default judgement granted 27/06###won###settled in full

 

HBOS filed at court acknowledged 20/06/2007 default judgement granted 16th july so won

Link to post
Share on other sites

hI

Just your address so i can email your letter back

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol i figured that i was just kidding lol

nationwide settled in full 7/06/2007

 

yorkshire bank settled in full 15/06/2007

 

capital one filed at court 06/06/2007 acknowledged 15/6 defence received 30/6 AQ sent 2/7 with application for summary judgement--hearing date 18 sept foe defence to be struck out

 

cahoot filed at court 25/06/2007 to acknowledge default judgement granted 27/06###won###settled in full

 

HBOS filed at court acknowledged 20/06/2007 default judgement granted 16th july so won

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol i figured that i was just kidding lol

 

Hi

Sorry better have a rest seem to have been on here all day need liquid refreshment..

 

Cheers

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

RippedOff,

 

the statements of protection are not prescribed terms

 

However, they do make it improperly executed and only enforceable by a court order, which to my way of thinking means it has been improperly executed from the start, and as the improper execution part is the protection statements, its been improperly execuiuted in a way that prejudices Monopoloy

 

I would be inclined to push for the debt being wiped out and if they dont play ball, take them to court (but I do like taking CCA's to court, whereas I can appreciate some might find that daunting)

 

Also loads of crap in there between the title ("CCA regulated by CCA 1974") and the sig that doesnt belong and should be after the sigs - this breaks the 'no interspersing' rule at Consumer Credit Regulations 1983 SI 1553, Regulation 2(4)

 

There is probably loads more there but I'm a tad busy at the mo!

 

Fact is, by gaining the license to offer credit from the OFT, they are obliged to construct an agreement in the manner parliament dictates, and this example aint right!

 

Apologies for the intrusion, but I'm still trying to understand what if anything is/isn't missing from this reply to CCA. (I'm probably just thick) I sent back a letter stating it is an application and their response was to issue a court claim. Just when I think I've managed to understand it all,I get completely thrown on reading something else.

Is it unenforceable? if so ....why? (simple answers please)

 

Thank you

 

DOTP.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does contain the prescribed terms, and it is signed by you and themso could come under this bit of the CCA 1974:

 

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

I would say that this is 'a document containing all of the prescribed terms'and it is signed by you. However, it's complicated by the fact that it is certainly an application, and one that they reserve the right to reject. This could make it void as it is an agreement to enter a future agreement. I'm no expert on that bit and am exploring that (with Peter's help) for my Cahoot agreement.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

This is an executed agreement and as far as i can see contains all the prescribed terms for a running credit account so section 127(3) is of no use to you . As you say it does not even pretend to adhere to the regulations in SI1553 regarding form so that would render it enforceable only with the order of a court. The only other thing that could make it unenforceable is section 127(4) if no cancellation details were sent as per secton 64. Or if there was some missrepresentation of tems on the agreement that was to prejuduce the debtors ability to make an informed decision to purchase.127(1 - 2)

 

Best regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Ian for your response. I've had some helpful replies on my original posting but I got so tangled (no pun) trying to understand regs,sections,etc

 

I certainly appreciate your input and.........I understand it thanks.

 

Wishing yourself and Peter the very best.

I Have nothing of any value to contribute to this huge thread, and I for one, as I'm sure many many people do, appreciate the time and effort you all put in to help with your good advice and research into being able to do just that.

Many many thanks to you all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does contain the prescribed terms, and it is signed by you and themso could come under this bit of the CCA 1974:

 

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

I would say that this is 'a document containing all of the prescribed terms'and it is signed by you. However, it's complicated by the fact that it is certainly an application, and one that they reserve the right to reject. This could make it void as it is an agreement to enter a future agreement. I'm no expert on that bit and am exploring that (with Peter's help) for my Cahoot agreement.

 

I always have a big issue with a document which states Application.

It is NOT an agreement it is an application - a pre-contractual request to take up the Creditors offer of credit on those prescribed terms. ONCE they have completed their investigations and determined what money you can have THEN they must issue a formal agreement which complies with all the conditions and you must sign THAT document as acceptance.

 

All this business about whether or not its in the prescribed manner etc misses the essence of this legislation and I will argue my way through court. It is this final document we are all seeking and if CCPs think they can bluster their way through all this, then WE have to stand strong and insist that they comply to the letter of the law.

 

My Amex thread is a very good example of where they have sent me a signed Application form, then when pushed have sent me the agreement which is unsigned by me and them AND I have never seen.

 

Sorry Peter, you know my views re Application forms pretending to be agreements: pure rubbish!!

 

Z

  • Haha 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Peter, you know my views re Application forms pretending to be agreements: pure rubbish!!

 

I'm afraid I also hold the same viewpoint as Zubo.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

My Wife has one of these from GE money / Debenhams these are the ones that are signed in store which gave you an instant credit limit, but it is an application form and they reserve the right to refuse it.

GE Money have just wrote back to me saying they have supplied the True Copy of the Agreement and only have to send me the T&C if they can't provided the agreement!!:rolleyes:

  • Haha 1

Capitalism is the legitimate racket

of the ruling class.

Al Capone

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4973 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...