Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

help very high interest rates on loan


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6445 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 im after a bit of advise. i got into financial trouble about 3 years ago and the only people who would lend me money to cover christmas was a company called provident.

my first loan was for £200 and i paid back £310. after neruing and renuing my loans i am now paying back £50 per week out of my benefits!!!i borrowed £800 and paying back £1512. then they let me have another £800 payable back £1512 and my husband has a £600 loan which we have to pay back £990.

now before i got into this web site and started to question authority i just paid this every week without question but these interest rates look VERY high to me and i was just wondering if they were legal? its almost loan sharkish that they charge this much. any advise would be great

thanx

Link to post
Share on other sites

The interest rate may be high (how long is th term of each loan) but this in itself is not illegal.

What were the reasons for the original financial difficulties, were you charged and/or defaulted on credit you had outstanding back then?

HSBC

7th October 2006 - Prelim for £3078

24th October - LBA

7th November - Claim filed

11th November - Acknowledged with intent to defend

11th December - Defence filed

16th December 2006 - Offered full amount but no default removal. Rejection letter sent.

 

Halifax

7th October 2006 - Prelim for £3427

24th October - LBA

3rd November - Offered £913

3rd November - Accepted as partial payment

7th November - Claim issued

21st November - Acknowledged with intent to defend

11th December - Offered full amount but no late payment removal

4th January - SETTLED + removed adverse credit info

 

A & L

19th October - Prelim for £540

26th October - Offered £358

2nd November - Accepted as partial payment and LBA

27th November - SETTLED + removed adverse credit info

Link to post
Share on other sites

the longest term is for 105 weeks and the shortest is 55 weeks. i was just very bad with money when i first left home. got into debt with council tax and behind with my mortgage then got a ccj so got black listed.

these sorts of companies just seem to be making lots of money off the backs of people in difficulties. on the 800 loans im paying back nearly 100% intersest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The APR looks to be about 75% which is, of course, very high.

However, these companies argue that they need to charge a higher APR because the loans are relatively small amounts. If they were charging 10% APr their cash profit(before paying any wages and costs) would be around £85 and they say they couldn't afford to do that.

 

I don't think you have any kind of claim in regards to the interest rate. With your old mortgage you probably had some charges applied and could claim these back. Was it in the last 6 years?

HSBC

7th October 2006 - Prelim for £3078

24th October - LBA

7th November - Claim filed

11th November - Acknowledged with intent to defend

11th December - Defence filed

16th December 2006 - Offered full amount but no default removal. Rejection letter sent.

 

Halifax

7th October 2006 - Prelim for £3427

24th October - LBA

3rd November - Offered £913

3rd November - Accepted as partial payment

7th November - Claim issued

21st November - Acknowledged with intent to defend

11th December - Offered full amount but no late payment removal

4th January - SETTLED + removed adverse credit info

 

A & L

19th October - Prelim for £540

26th October - Offered £358

2nd November - Accepted as partial payment and LBA

27th November - SETTLED + removed adverse credit info

Link to post
Share on other sites

no it wasn't, im pretty much sorted now, i spent a long time trying to get my finances in order and with exception to the bank charges this was the only thing that bothered me. thanx for your advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a couple of ladies who act as agents for Provident. They informed me that Provident readily agree to accept reduced weekly payments in cases of hardship, and do not take legal action as long the agreement is kept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

are these agreements regulated under the CCA 1974?

have you had a default notice on any of these?

even though the interest rates are high, it might be difficult to argue extortionate credit. It could be worth taking a look at ss137-140 of the CCA for more info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...