Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
  • 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

Minicredit - Transmission Fee becomes Drawdown Fee


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3891 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,

 

Just noticed that Minicredit changed their terms and conditions and renamed the 19.50 GBP transmission fee now a drawdown fee. Makes me wonder why? :-)

 

So I thought it is time to reclaim this so I sent them this:

 

"Dear Madam or Sir,

 

I am writing in relation to loans associated to my account, for which I incurred transmission fees which I do not believe are fairly and reflecting the actual costs of fund transmissions.

The loans were taken out from from 17 January 2012 to 06 July 2012

 

The reason I believe that these transmission fees (19.50 GBP for each transmission) are unfair and not reflecting the actual costs of fund transmissions is that these are very high and unclear.

 

Unless you can provide proof that these transmission fees were reasonable and actually incurred, I will expect a full refund of these transmission fees (136.50 GBP), plus 8% interest on these up to 8 August 2013 (14.94 GBP), in total 151.44 GBP, plus daily interest of 8% after 8 August 2013.

I look forward to your prompt response to this email.

If I have not had a satisfactory response from you within eight weeks of this letter I will contact the Financial Ombudsman Service to formally investigate my complaint.

Kind regards"

 

Can't wait for their reply :-)

24/7 Moneybox: 195.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

British Pearl/Spondoolies: 752.10 - Oustanding: 0.00

Cash on go/Peachy: 206.30 - Oustanding: 0.00

EarlyPayday: 325.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Lending Stream: 1398.46 - Oustanding: 0.00

MicroLend: 780.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Minicredit: 520.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

MonthEndMoney/PaydayUK: 937.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

MrLender: 715.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Pounds2Pocket: 2328.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

QuickQuid: 1800.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SafeLoans: 450.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

Speed-E-Loans: 516.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SwiftSterling: 1295.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Toothfairy Finance: 544.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

TxtLoan: 450.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

WageDayAdvance: 670.80 - Oustanding: 0.00

Wonga: 1336.86 - Oustanding: 0.00

Total: 15220.52 - Oustanding: 0.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Just a quick update. I got a response from their claim department which reads:

 

"In order to apply for a loan from MiniCredit the Customer has to sign up on our webpage www.minicredit.co.uk. After entering the personal, employment and Banking details the Customer receives the pre-Contract to the entered e-mail address and a PIN number to the mobile phone number in order to sign the Loan Agreement on our webpage. After signing the Loan Agreement a copy is also sent to the e-mail address of the Customer. When the Loan application is completed and the Loan Agreement signed the system performs a Credit check and verifies the Bank Account details to make sure that the personal information and address details match with Bank Account and Sort Code.Microcredit Ltd (trading name MiniCredit) received the registration application from You on the 17th of January 2012. From the registration performed on the 17th of January 2012 up to the 31st of July 2012, You received 7 loans from Microcredit Ltd.

According to the Credit Agreement, the Customer has to pay the Fast Advance Transmission Fee £19.50 to receive the loan within 15 minutes from the moment the application is sent to us. The fee is payable to cover the administrative costs Microcredit Ltd incurs to have the application assessed in such a short period of time. The costs of the affordability assessment and identification cheques that are performed using the services of our partners and the fast manual assessment of each application is covered by the Fast Advance Transmission Fee. The fee was optional according Your Credit Agreement signed with Microcredit Ltd on the 17th of January 2012.You could have requested the fee to be not applicable to your loan applications, by sending a written request at least three working days before sending a loan application. This possibility was not used by You. This option was explained to You in the Credit Agreement. Microcredit Ltd is not able to refund you the Fast Advance Transmission Fee as you did not request for regular transmission as explained in the credit agreement."And here is my response to them:

"COMPLAINT - TO THE MANAGER

 

Dear Madam/Sir,

 

Thank you for your response to my complaint from 08 August 2013.

 

I would like to address the answers you provided as follows:

 

1) "The fee is payable to cover the administrative costs Microcredit Ltd incurs to have the application assessed in such a short period of time":

The fee is named "Fast Advance Transmission Fee". This indicates that the fee is used to expedite the process of transmitting the funds from your bank account to my bank account (using the Faster Payment Services of the bank), not to expedite the process of assessing an application.

 

2) "The costs of the affordability assessment and identification cheques that are performed using the services of our partners":

All information to assess the application from my side (income, etc.) was provided and assessed by you when the original agreement was entered into on 17 January 2012. This agreement is a permanent agreement with a credit limit provided (similar to a credit card), so no further assessments should be necessary.

 

3) "manual assessment of each application is covered by the Fast Advance Transmission Fee":

Each time a loan was taken out it was approved within 1-2 seconds. This indicates that it is highly unlikely that a manual assessment was involved.

4) "You could have requested the fee to be not applicable to your loan applications, by sending a written request at least three working days before sending a loan application. This possibility was not used by You.":

Per agreement in these cases you may charge a "handling Fee £19.50" for handling the written request so that is no option to avoid this fee amount.

 

I therefore still conclude that the transmission fees are unfair. The reason I believe that these transmission fees (19.50 GBP for each transmission) are unfair and not reflecting the actual costs of fund transmissions is that these are very high and unclear.

 

Unless you can provide proof that these transmission fees were reasonable and actually incurred, I will expect a full refund of these transmission fees (136.50 GBP), plus 8% interest on these up to 8 August 2013 (14.94 GBP), in total 151.44 GBP, plus daily interest of 8% after 8 August 2013.

I look forward to your prompt response to this email.

If I have not had a satisfactory response from you within eight weeks from 08 August 2013 I will contact the Financial Ombudsman Service to formally investigate my complaint.

 

Kind regards"

 

Will keep you updated...

 

24/7 Moneybox: 195.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

British Pearl/Spondoolies: 752.10 - Oustanding: 0.00

Cash on go/Peachy: 206.30 - Oustanding: 0.00

EarlyPayday: 325.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Lending Stream: 1398.46 - Oustanding: 0.00

MicroLend: 780.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Minicredit: 520.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

MonthEndMoney/PaydayUK: 937.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

MrLender: 715.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Pounds2Pocket: 2328.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

QuickQuid: 1800.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SafeLoans: 450.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

Speed-E-Loans: 516.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SwiftSterling: 1295.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Toothfairy Finance: 544.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

TxtLoan: 450.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

WageDayAdvance: 670.80 - Oustanding: 0.00

Wonga: 1336.86 - Oustanding: 0.00

Total: 15220.52 - Oustanding: 0.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

 

Another update, I have received a further email from Minicredit - please see below for their email and my response to it. I find the part about the FOS handling these fees very interesting, if anyone ever went to fos for any fees and charges and have already a response from fos please let me know. Anyway, I will not give up and will actually take this even to court if necessary.

 

Here is the email from Minicredit:

"Dear xxxxx,

Your complaint has been referred to me according to the Formal Complaints Procedure.

I apologize for the delay in answering your e-mail but I took time to process the previous correspondence between you and Microcredit Ltd.

 

We have received the following information previously from the Financial Ombudsman Service:

The application of interest and charges by a lender is a commercial decision for a business to make, and it is not for the Financial Ombudsman Service to comment on whether or not the charges are unfair.

In investigating disputes of this nature, we must look toward the terms and conditions of the specific agreement to decide whether or not the interest and charges have been applied in line with them.

Every Customer has the possibility to consider the terms and conditions of the loan agreement before signing it. When you signed the agreement, you also confirmed that the charges and fees are acceptable. We understand that you might have missed the fact that a fee is payable from the loan amount, but you have applied for 11 loans of which 7 were issued. If you considered the Fast Advance Transmission Fee £19.50 to be unfair, you had the possibility to cancel the loan agreement within 14 days from the date you signed it and later request regular transmission.

Microcredit Ltd deducted the fee of £19.50 to cover the costs of the assessment made by the loan managers and transfer, so that you could receive the funds within 15 minutes after the loan was issued. For a Credit Company, the faster payment is not free of charge.

The information regarding the fee is available before you register: https://www.minicredit.co.uk/explain_me

After reading your e-mail I would like to ask you to read the loan agreement very carefully, as the following was written in the agreement:

Fast Advance Transmission fee is applicable to all loan applications if not notified in written form at least three days before sending loan application. If your bank account you have provided does not support faster payments scheme we may still charge £19.50 Fast Advance Transmission and handling Fee £19.50.

The Credit Agreement was available on your MiniCredit.co.uk online account before you applied for the loans.

The request for regular transmission had to be sent in written form at least 3 days before applying for a loan. You had the possibility to send the regular transmission request for the next loan application right after you received a loan, so that if you applied for a loan in the future the fee would not have been payable.

Although you consider that by making the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, Microcredit Ltd should act against the terms and conditions of the mutually agreed Credit Agreement, we will still not be providing you with the refund you have requested. I understand that this decision might be disappointing, but it is based on the assessments made by the Financial Ombudsman Service on complaints related to the £19.50 Fast Advance Transmission Fee.

Kind regards,

xxxxx

 

MiniCredit.co.uk Head of Customer Support

and Claims Department

And here is my response to them:

 

"Dear xxxxx,

 

Thank you very much for your email.

 

After reviewing your email I still consider the fast advance transmission fee unreasonable and in no relation to the actual costs for the faster payment service incurred by your credit company.

 

In addition I have again reviewed the credit agreement regarding this:

 

Fast Advance Transmission fee is applicable to all loan applications if not notified in written form at least three days before sending loan application. If your bank account you have provided does not support faster payments scheme we may still charge £19.50 Fast Advance Transmission and handling Fee £19.50.

 

From the text above I see no mentioning that this fee is in any relation to a credit assessment by a loan manager, neither from the text itself nor from the wording "fast advance transmission fee". Also all loans were approved within seconds so no manual review seemed to be involved.

 

Thank you for providing a previous opinion from the Financial Ombudsman. I might still take this case to the Financial Ombudsman as each case is individually different. Therefore please let me know if the below was your final response or if not provide me your final response, so I can take this further to the FOS.

 

I might also take court action to clarify and recover these fees.

 

Thank you very much and

 

Kind regards

 

xxxxx"

 

 

 

24/7 Moneybox: 195.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

British Pearl/Spondoolies: 752.10 - Oustanding: 0.00

Cash on go/Peachy: 206.30 - Oustanding: 0.00

EarlyPayday: 325.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Lending Stream: 1398.46 - Oustanding: 0.00

MicroLend: 780.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Minicredit: 520.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

MonthEndMoney/PaydayUK: 937.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

MrLender: 715.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Pounds2Pocket: 2328.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

QuickQuid: 1800.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SafeLoans: 450.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

Speed-E-Loans: 516.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SwiftSterling: 1295.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Toothfairy Finance: 544.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

TxtLoan: 450.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

WageDayAdvance: 670.80 - Oustanding: 0.00

Wonga: 1336.86 - Oustanding: 0.00

Total: 15220.52 - Oustanding: 0.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I doubt they would have given me that information.

 

Interesting that they say their bank charges their company for faster payment services when in fact they are banking with RBS which does not charge business customers for using this service.

24/7 Moneybox: 195.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

British Pearl/Spondoolies: 752.10 - Oustanding: 0.00

Cash on go/Peachy: 206.30 - Oustanding: 0.00

EarlyPayday: 325.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Lending Stream: 1398.46 - Oustanding: 0.00

MicroLend: 780.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Minicredit: 520.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

MonthEndMoney/PaydayUK: 937.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

MrLender: 715.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Pounds2Pocket: 2328.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

QuickQuid: 1800.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SafeLoans: 450.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

Speed-E-Loans: 516.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SwiftSterling: 1295.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Toothfairy Finance: 544.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

TxtLoan: 450.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

WageDayAdvance: 670.80 - Oustanding: 0.00

Wonga: 1336.86 - Oustanding: 0.00

Total: 15220.52 - Oustanding: 0.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Another update, have received the following response from Minicredit:

 

"Thank you for the reply!

If you are still dissatisfied, you can request a review from the Financial Ombudsman Service."

They still do not mention anything if this is their "Final response", but I will treat it as this now and have now filed the following complaint with fos:

"Microcredit Ltd opened on 17 January 2012 a "Running Account Credit" with me. This type of agreement is similar to a credit card and includes a credit limit and the possibility to withdraw funds into my bank account monthly and repaying them on my next payday. In order to receive the funds on the same day as requested via the Faster Payment Service of the banking system they charged a "Fast Advance Transmission Fee" in the amount of 19.50 GBP. The agreement from 17 January 2012 for this fee stated: "Fast Advance Transmission fee is applicable to all loan applications if not notified in written form at least three days before sending loan application. If your bank account

you have provided does not support faster payments scheme we may still charge £19.50". My understanding therefore was that this fee is to cover the charges implied by their bank to their company for using the faster payment service. Microcredit Ltd has recently provided me with updated terms and conditions for my agreement in which they have removed the Fast Advance Transmission Fee and have introduced instead a Drawdown Fee of 19.50 GBP. I complained to Microcredit Ltd about the Fast Advance Transmission Fee and received different justifications for this fee, as follows. 1) "The fee is payable to cover the administrative costs Microcredit Ltd incurs to have

the application assessed in such a short period of time". I would like to mention that the loan application was assessed on 17 January 2012 as this is a running credit account. Further assessments to adjust the credit limit should not be payable by me and should not be in relation to the faster payment service. 2) "The costs of the affordability assessment and identification cheques that are performed

using the services of our partners". 3) "manual assessment of each application is covered by the Fast Advance Transmission Fee". I would like to comment that each time I withdraw funds the process was completed in seconds, I therefore doubt that a manual process is involved. 4) "For a Credit Company, the faster payment is not free of charge.". My understanding is that the funds were received from the bank RBS which does not charge its business customers for using the faster payment services. Even if Microcredit Ltd have been charged by their bank I doubt that this was for 19.50 GBP."

"I would like for Microcredit Ltd to refund me the fast advance transmission fees, which they charged me seven times, plus 8% interest."

24/7 Moneybox: 195.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

British Pearl/Spondoolies: 752.10 - Oustanding: 0.00

Cash on go/Peachy: 206.30 - Oustanding: 0.00

EarlyPayday: 325.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Lending Stream: 1398.46 - Oustanding: 0.00

MicroLend: 780.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Minicredit: 520.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

MonthEndMoney/PaydayUK: 937.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

MrLender: 715.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Pounds2Pocket: 2328.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

QuickQuid: 1800.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SafeLoans: 450.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

Speed-E-Loans: 516.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SwiftSterling: 1295.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Toothfairy Finance: 544.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

TxtLoan: 450.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

WageDayAdvance: 670.80 - Oustanding: 0.00

Wonga: 1336.86 - Oustanding: 0.00

Total: 15220.52 - Oustanding: 0.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I have also sent the following to their claims department as per their complaints procedure:

 

"COMPLAINT - TO THE CEO

 

Dear Claims Team,

 

I have received the following reply from the Customer Service Manager, but I am still not satisfied with the response.

 

Therefore per your complaint procedure I am sending you the previous communication below for referral to the Chief Executive Officer.

 

Kind regards"

24/7 Moneybox: 195.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

British Pearl/Spondoolies: 752.10 - Oustanding: 0.00

Cash on go/Peachy: 206.30 - Oustanding: 0.00

EarlyPayday: 325.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Lending Stream: 1398.46 - Oustanding: 0.00

MicroLend: 780.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Minicredit: 520.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

MonthEndMoney/PaydayUK: 937.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

MrLender: 715.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Pounds2Pocket: 2328.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

QuickQuid: 1800.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SafeLoans: 450.50 - Oustanding: 0.00

Speed-E-Loans: 516.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

SwiftSterling: 1295.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

Toothfairy Finance: 544.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

TxtLoan: 450.00 - Oustanding: 0.00

WageDayAdvance: 670.80 - Oustanding: 0.00

Wonga: 1336.86 - Oustanding: 0.00

Total: 15220.52 - Oustanding: 0.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...