Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted.
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Late Payments on CF + DMP + Settlement offers


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4483 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 there,

 

Apologies if this isn't the right sub forum for this post. Mods and Admins, please feel free to move it to the right sub forum.

 

I'm on a Debt Management Plan and I recently offered CL Finance a very generous (i.e. 50%) full and final settlement offer for a debt that was passed on to them at the start of 2007. They have come back and declined the offer offering me a pitiful 10% discount. I'm not worried about this because I know they will accept it if I ask again with some concrete reasons. And I have read from here that DCAs buy debts for a mere 10%.

 

Now, before sending the offer I wasn't aware that this DCA have been marking my file since 2007 till date as "Payment was up to six months late" and this has contributed to badly scarring my file.

 

As a follow up to their response, I'm now thinking of re-offering them the 50% with the usual caveats - such as marking the file as "settled in full" and neither them nor their associates will take any other action to pursue the debt in any way... etc - and most importantly, they will erase every entry in my file or mark each entry as "Arrangement to Pay" or "Up to date" if they accept the offer.

 

In addition to the above, I would request the CCA and hint that they have two routes, accept the offer or get nothing (if the account goes into dispute) and perhaps take them to court of no CCA is provided within the timescale.

 

Any thoughts please?

 

Thanks! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi there,

 

I used a Debt Management Plan to repay one my creditors, Capital One, between Oct/Nov 2005 to Apr 2011. The account was passed (or balance was sold) to a DCA called NCO Europe Limited sometime in Mar 2006 even after they (i.e. Capital One) agreed to the reduced payment and they also said in the agreement that "if the proposed reduced payment is paid each and every month, Capital One will not issue a statement of default".

 

I recently looked at all my Credit Files to find that Capital One marked my file as 4 or 5 late payments between Dec 2005 and Feb 2006 and then Defaulted my account every month from Mar. 2006 till when the amount owed was cleared, i.e. Apr 2011. To my knowledge payments were made every month but I can vaguely remember one month were I might have missed a payment because the Counselling agency didn't set up the DD correctly but this would have happened in mid 2006.

 

By the way, the account was passed back to Capital One when I had cleared the balance.

 

My next course of action is to request the CCA and see how it goes from there.

 

My questions are:

 

1. Do you think that's a good first step? i.e. requesting a CCA first?

2. Why did they continue to mark the account as Default for years?

3. Should they not have stopped defaulting the account if the reduced payment was greater than or the same as the contractual minimum payment?

 

Any advice would be most appreciated?

 

Thanks! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the ORG debt?

and with whom/for

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, You will have been defaulted once the rest is updates,

any payment other than the amount required by the original

agreement is a default on that agreement so what has been

reported is the contiuing build up of arrears if any and late

payments.

Send the CCA to the LAST company to write to you.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

something is not right here

a debt this old should not be still running

 

have you ever SAR'ed the OC

 

as i suspect its widly inflated with charges

that can all be reclaimed.

 

and PPI too?

 

almost sounds like a cash cow account to me

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BRIGADIER2JCS,

 

Capital One was the last company to write to me informing me that the account had returned to them. So I will request the CCA from them. I will be able to get this template from the Letter Templates section of the forum right?

 

Hi, You will have been defaulted once the rest is updates,

any payment other than the amount required by the original

agreement is a default on that agreement so what has been

reported is the contiuing build up of arrears if any and late

payments.

3. Should they not have stopped defaulting the account if the reduced payment was greater than or the same as the contractual minimum payment?

I see your point. So regarding what I mentioned in my first post, point 3, let's say the minimum was 10% of the balance and the balance was £50 (after making several reduced monthly payments) and the reduced monthly payment was £5. Should they not have started marking the file as "Up To Date" afterwards since the monthly payment was now up to the contractual minimum payment?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No the fact lower payments are made, and kept up

the lower payment still breaches the agreement.

CCA request letter in library green tab on left top o page.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx,

 

I haven't SAR'ed them yet and interest charges were frozen when I started my DMP. With this in mind is it still worth claiming PPI? Plus I thought that it's only after 6 years that a debt can be seen as being "old"?

 

I'm more concerned about what's being marked in the file than the money and I thought that a full and final offer with some caveats + CCA request would get this sorted?

 

Do you still think an SAR + PPI claim would be the way forward?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Thanks again! :-)

 

Just still a little bit confused and sorry for dragging this. If the reduced payments is now greater than the contractual minimum, is that still breach? That is I'm paying more than the minimum.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm talking about before the DMP kicked

 

i take it you are doing the DMP not some fee taking co.?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the ''minimum'' payment

is a variable figure based on a % of the

outstanding balance so if interest and charges

are added a fixed payment will often not meet

the minimum payment required in any or all

months.

What you see is the statment that the minimum

payment is eg £5 0r a % of the balance I think.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Yes, they were some charges but I shredded 2 or 3 years worth of statements (last year) because I thought I won't need them. So if I SAR them I should be able to see the charges and get those refunded? I should send this to GE Money correct?

 

Yes I am, through CCCS. In the meantime, should I review my DMP with the CCCS and get them to reduce my monthly payments before next month's payment is due? They (i.e. CL Finance) got a huge chunk last month because 3 or 4 of my creditors were paid off the month before.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I see. Let's say the balance is £15 and the reduced payment is £5 p/m would it still not meet the contract? For example, I had a store card that was 24.9% APR and in the contract it said the min payment due each month will be the greater of £4 or 4% of the outstanding balance. So in the scenario above the reduced payment of £5 p/m is greater than £4 and 4% of the balance. What is your take on this?

 

Also note that interest was frozen throughout the DMP. Maybe this is where the problem is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep sar ge

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm...just one point...you say the account was passed back to the original creditor and that the balance is cleared....is the account still active or is it close?. If the latter then there is no point in a CCA request.

 

IMHO you would be better off sending a SAR with a view to reclaiming unlawful charges and possible PPI if relevant.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly they are entitled to mark you file as you entered into an agreement withthem.

 

i'd sit tight and lets see what the sar tells us.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

It was passed back to Capital One and I closed it the month after.

 

I will send off an SAR and see what charges were applied.

 

Should I send it to the DCA or to Capital One (or perhaps both)?

Nothing can be done about the Default mark on my file?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sar always to the oc

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is only ever one default date, the

others are the required updates only.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

SAR will go to Cap1.

 

As Brig says, they appear to have correctly marked the file and updated it. Defaults are very hard to remove from the file. The slim chance you may have is to show that the default arose purely as a result of unlawful charges and you may be able to get it removed....but it will not be easy.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...