Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Oakwood Homeloans Ltd


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4120 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

I dont know what to do about this company. Try to keep it short. Been with them since 2006 had issues from the start but recently ran into problems with business, so built up arrears. They went for possession but I instructed a solicitor and they decided not to attend court but did not cancel, so we had to attend (they still added charges of 400 plus to account), I obviously had to pay my solicitor.

Since they telephoned to see if I would be interested in capitalising the arrears I said yes but only if I could see figures first. They sent me figures with a notification that the arrears had been capitalised following my authorisation :x . The figures did not make sense they had added an unexplained 3500 to my account, I wrote official complaint.

 

The repone I received today, 'head office authorised capitalisation', that justifies it then, 'they will reverse but it will show on credit file' ! They have also provided a breakdown of figures charges for everything from 50 per month arrears fee to insurance premiums to DD return 30, twice a month. They also have charged all the solicitor costs and court costs. they also admit in the response that they have reversed some insurance premiums off my mortgage balance and reduced my arrears by the same amount. The insurance will no longer be charged in my payments. This equates to double accounting, adding to balance of account and charging me monthly in payments. How many other account holders are they doing this to ?

 

I have phoned Ombudsman but I lost my last case against Oakwood (different mortgage) with them and it took a year before the result. Any ideas from anyone would be much appreciated.

 

They are offering big discounts but very difficult situation to remortgage in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Have brought this to the attention of the site team.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing plshelp - do not deal with them by phone. You may reach an agreement but then, a few months down the line, you will find they "forgot"

 

Write and ask them to give you the figures, use a SAR if necessary

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This company is a joke, they sent acknowledgement of complaint stating they will respond in ten days dated 20 October, they then send a follow up dated 17th November stating they are unable to provide a reponse. But they can conclude matters and provide a full response in next 8 working days !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

A long story has followed with this mortgage, transferred to Mortgage Title Resolutions, been to court regarding charges and the farcicle management of the account. The judge, although questioned a lot of the charges, deemed them to be fair, even though he could clearly see there had been two returned DD fees in same day !!!! The funny thing is I get a telephone call from Oakwood today, who say they have been trying to contact me, why not just ring in the first place ? Even to the point of sending letters to my old solicitor. The reason to repay charges, can anyone shed any light on this ? It could be the result of the FSA investigation into HML, if so anyone with past or present Oakwood mortgages make sure they have your contact details as a cheque could be on its way !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There is definately a readdress programme at Oakwood, received a cheque for a small amount of the charges they had allocated to my account. The situation makes me smile, I have had the charges from Oakwood and them receive a letter from the current provider asking if they should get the cheque taken of the fees balance or do i want it repaid to me ? Uh, what type of accounting is this ?? The fees have been repaid should they not be reduced from my balance. I cannot believe a judge backed this bunch of [edit]!

Edited by steven4064
I'm afraid you can't say that as it potentially libellous
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Am i right in believing this ..

 

..we hold a mortgage over a property.

 

We purchased it in say 2006 for 140k, sub prime mortgage for 120k.

 

The markets collapse reduce the value to 70k,

the mortgage company collapse and sell its debts at greatly reduced values,

 

initially some reductions are offered by Oakwood but you are very lucky if you can obtain a mortage in the current conditions,

especially when its to replace sub prime.

 

In step the profiteers they buy up the reduced debts and in doing so the effective rights of our properties.

 

They then start the game,

add as many cost as possible,

increase the debt all under the contract and sort of legal but just add costs, costs and more costs,

19k has been added in two years and backed in a court room in my case.

 

They squeeze as much as possible and then gain control,

sell for as much as possible,

 

oh after instructing

 

the house has a make over first but not paid for until sale.

 

They advertise in local press and gazump if they can get an extra 1k.

 

The property sells £88k at profit to them but a massive shortfall to me,

 

i am exposed for a profit of £30k plus all enforcable through charging orders etc and eventually bankruptcy.

 

This is a regualted homeloan.

 

I would say i am lucky i dont live there

 

oh but then there is the charging order.

 

Morals, Britain aint got any left !

Link to post
Share on other sites

i expect you have all the documentation?

 

i know its a sorry story.

 

but...i just wonder where all these charges poss PENALTY ones, might fit in

 

and if MCOBS is a line to investigate too?

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...