Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
  • Our picks

charles34c

Enough is enough - lets fight back against ndr/marshall hoares/toothfairy/paycheck credit intimidation

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2283 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

hi everyone,i today paid my monthly payment in to barclays ,only to be told it was a company called cim tech ltd and not webloanprocessing,as cimtech is an original ,am i to take it oft have closed them down and as such where do i stand with my binding agreement with the ombudsman,i signed over 50 court exhibits over a year ago for the oft in camden and still nothing done,any more usefull info to hand

 

Hi,

Can you confirm who your original loan was with and if your arrangement is with NDR or Marshall Hoares or other?

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CIM TECHNOLOGIES - WEBLOANSPROCESSING - NDR - MARSHALL HOARES

 

Anyone that follows these forums will know that in relation to Toothfairy Finance – CIM Technologies were heavily censored by the OFT (Please see below)

 

What is astonishing is that CIM Technologies are now registered at company house to the same address as NDR, Marshall Hoares & Webloansprocessing. (The infamous 15 Lyndurst Terrace, NW3 5QA)

 

I am no lawyer but surely the OFT ruling below is being breached with all these companies being run by the same people masquerading as different companies. (ie NDR & Marshall Hoares - 2.1 disclose the details or existence of a debt to any third party unless legally entitled to do so; 2.2 levy charges that are disproportionate to the main debt and which do not reflect the actual and necessary cost of recovering a debt owed to it;

2.3 pressure debtors who have defaulted on an agreement to pay unreasonably large instalments when they are unable to do so;

 

Good god if you check webloansprocessing website they seem reputable and have even won industry rewards!!!

 

Northern Debt Recovery

http://Http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06956396

 

Marshall Hoares Bailiffs

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06871092/MARSHALL-HOARES-BAILIFFS-LTD

 

Web Loans Processing

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/08156934/WEB-LOANS-PROCESSING-HOLDINGS-LIMITED

 

Cim Technologies

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06144500

 

REQUIREMENTS IlVlPOSED BY THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING ('OFT')

PURSUANT TO SECTION 33A AND SECTION 33D(4) OF THE CONSUMER

CREDIT ACT 1974 ('the Act')

REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

CIM Technologies Ltd, (Consumer Credit Licence Number 615666),

registered office: 65 New Cavendish Street, London, WIG 7LS.

THE OFT REQUIRES AS FOLLOWS:

That:

1. CIM Technologies Limited shall not use any trading name which is not

specified in its consumer credit licence.

2. CIM Technologies Limited shall only use a form of communication

where it can be reasonably certain that it is contacting the correct

individual and shall not:

2.1 disclose the details or existence of a debt to any third party

unless legally entitled to do so;

2.2 levy charges that are disproportionate to the main debt and

which do not reflect the actual and necessary cost of recovering

a debt owed to it;

2.3 pressure debtors who have defaulted on an agreement to pay

unreasonably large instalments when they are unable to do so;

0 r

2.4 make any misleading representations as to the action it might

take or might be taking to recover a debt.

3. CIM Technologies Limited shall:

3.1 only debit a debtor's account on the date or dates as expressly

set out in the loan agreement, unless otherwise specifically

agreed with the debtor after the loan has been issued, for

example as part of a payment plan;

3.2 not debit lesser or greater amounts than those expressly set out

in the loan agreement unless such amounts have been

specifically agreed with the debtor after the loan has been

issued, for example as part of a payment plan; and

CllVl Technologies Ltd, 61 5666. 27 October 201 0

Page 1 of 2 3.3 only debit from an account specifically given to CIM

Technologies Limited for the payment of that loan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi charlie,original loan,was toothfairy,ombudsmen ruled in my favour and debt came down to 700pounds from over 3,000,iv,e paid every month bit still get sum threats from ndr,marshall (not baliffs)hoares,my payments are to webloan processing but this am barclays said it was cim tech,who were the original umberella name for all these rougues!i prepared court exhibits with help of my local trading standrs and i believe are in the hands of someone @camden oft(as yet unacted on),regards lingus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are getting threats and harassment letters while you are on an agreed repayment plan, DON'T IGNORE IT. Get a full complaint into the OFT and the local trading standards. The reason they act like they do is because nobody complains.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact the OFT and get the complaint in to the woman who is dealing with this company. larholt seems to be running scared right now and is in the midst of setting up a bunch of companies. Possibly so he can transfer them off should webloans come under official investigation.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Toothfairy again :-(

 

Be aware that Gary Chapple may no longer be the head of Web Loans but he still has fingers in other pies.

 

He has two other licences pending, one for community pay day loans Ltd and Tune Tribe finance Ltd (?) alongside his current licence, Iceland finance Ltd.

 

CIM tech no longer have a licence so anyone getting letters from them can tell them to do one.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Contact the OFT and get the complaint in to the woman who is dealing with this company. larholt seems to be running scared right now and is in the midst of setting up a bunch of companies. Possibly so he can transfer them off should webloans come under official investigation.

 

The OFT team compiling a case against NDR/MH have already been advised of this and seemed very interested in the link back to the Toothfairy case.

 

That said it is a bid dissapointing the OFT cannot work this our for themselves as all the evidence is there in the public domain showing beyond all doubts Larholt has an array of different companies committing the same crimes his original ones have already been reprimanded for.

 

That said lets hope the net is closing although it is little consolation to the many vulnerable people whose life's have been ruined by vile threats and intimidation often paying of more than 15 x what they originally borrowed.

 

Any TV production company really should go after this shower as they are by far the worst offenders.

 

Best regards,

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can work it out for themselves, they just dont have the time/resources to do it. Thats why they ask for complaints from people who use their "services", so they can get a jump start on the investigation.

 

As for tv/media investigations, lets just say someone from a pretty big media company is looking at the case as well.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toothfairyfinance.com is a trading name of Web Loans Processing Limited so yes you are right technically speaking any payments should be made to Web Loans Processing.

 

That said, of course Web Loans Processing - Cim Tech - Toothfairy - NDR - Marshall Hoarses are all one and the same, all are registered at company house to the infamous 15 Lyndhurst Terrace.

 

I would write to: info at webloansprocessing dot com and ask for written clarification why your payments are being made to discredited company (Cim Tech) that as far as you are concerned do not hold your debt and copy in the FOS.

 

Brgds, Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi charlie,original loan,was toothfairy,ombudsmen ruled in my favour and debt came down to 700pounds from over 3,000,iv,e paid every month bit still get sum threats from ndr,marshall (not baliffs)hoares,my payments are to webloan processing but this am barclays said it was cim tech,who were the original umberella name for all these rougues!i prepared court exhibits with help of my local trading standrs and i believe are in the hands of someone @camden oft(as yet unacted on),regards lingus

 

Toothfairyfinance.com is a trading name of Web Loans Processing Limited so yes you are right technically speaking any payments should be made to Web Loans Processing.

 

That said, of course Web Loans Processing - Cim Tech - Toothfairy - NDR - Marshall Hoarses are all one and the same, all are registered at company house to the infamous 15 Lyndhurst Terrace.

 

I would write to: info at webloansprocessing dot com and ask for written clarification why your payments are being made to discredited company (Cim Tech) that as far as you are concerned do not hold your debt and copy in the FOS.

 

Brgds, Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought 15 lyndhurst terrace was an apartment that Larholt got evicted from a few years ago and has remained empty since.

 

Edit: Just checked and its a redirection centre.

 

Toothfairy Finance - Loans

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

Telephone: 0800 088 2222 http://www.toothfairyfinance .com View more »

Loan Tech Ltd - Engineers (Consulting)

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

View more »

Community Pay Day Loans Ltd

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

View more »

Web Loans Processing Holdings Ltd

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

View more »

Get Lolly Finance Ltd

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

View more »

Marshall Hoares Bailiffs Ltd - Loans

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

Telephone: 0800 088 2222 View more »

Northern Debt Recovery Ltd - Engineers (Consulting)

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

View more »

Cim Technologies Ltd - Engineers (Consulting)

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

View more »

Web Loans Processing Ltd - Engineers (Consulting)

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

View more »

Tune Tribe Finance Ltd

15, Lyndhurst Terrace, Hampstead, London, NW3 5QA

View more »


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

i was harassed for months by these people but took comfort from people giving excellent advice on here, i ended up on a dmp and they kept harassing me till i upped my payments. i am now close to the original £400 loan being paid off and no where near the £2990 that they want !!! i just wanted to know how i would calculate a months interest before i tell them where to shove it and take me to court...many thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your loan and interest should be stated on your original contract with them.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the loans issued by the Lyndhurst Terrace Mob had clauses stating interest would be charged indefinitely on outstanding balances, usually at a rate of 18 pounds each two week period per 100 owed. This is why people end up being told they owe thousands.

 

So if you cannot pay on time, even for plausible reasons, they will simply charge you this amount each 14 days, forever in theory..

 

I say clause in the loosest sense as it is more a chart which the contract half refers to.

 

[This is of course not enforceable. (Hence why they have never taken anyone to court)

 

Sad thing though is that the vermin at the likes of Marshall Hoares and NDR will have convinced many poor souls up and down the country these charges are legitimate and lives will be ruined paying never ending interest against vile threats.

 

May I ask who your original loan was with?

 

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC/TF/MHB etc are all the same company ran by the same man.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...