Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update: tfl is taking me to court I'm trying to get an ooc claim from them but they have not been replying to my emails. 
    • Are these the important pages I need to upload ? 1.  pages 1-4 are court form 10a 2.  2 pages of the CCA agreement  3.  Default notice from NewDay, 22/02/20 4.   Lowell letter stating they own debt ,     Dated 16/11/20 5. Unheaded letter also dated 16/11/20 from NewDay saying they assigned “all of the respective rights etc,”  to Lowell on 23/10/20 I make this 9 relevant pages from what I can see   ( all other pages are statements/default notes and lots of FCA info sheets) just needing your confirmation in advance as I don’t want to send over pages that are not required thank you  UCM      
    • Just out of curiosity aesmith - are you a lawyer?
    • I spoke to a pro-bono entity this afternoon.  They advise I must initiate a claim in the court v the receiver if I want to then file an application for an order for sale.  I must have a claim/ proceedings to be able to force a sale. The judge in the current proceedings  has told me that I cannot force the lender to sell and the lender cannot interfere either.   If the receiver isn't acting correctly and isn't selling - this means I must make a claim against the receiver I could initiate a claim. Or much quicker  - the other entity - with a charge already - could use that to make an application for an order for sale.
    • Thanks Dave It's not too far away, about 8 or 9 miles, so I will probably venture over on my bike if I can't think of a good reason to drive there again! I'll have a chat with Mrs GB_Joe tomorrow and see which shops they visited, I know M&S was on the list (had to try on multiple sets of trousers!) and they are actually in that bit of retail park. The uniform shop is across the way in the Meridian Centre, so probably not helpful to get them involved.
  • 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

I had an associates loan back in 2001.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3446 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 take all of this is being done on the phone?

 

 

I'd be sending an fos cq to them.

 

 

make it official.

 

 

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

Well that's the thing. Been onto FOS and been told that as sale took place 18/06/2001. Citi weren't regulated so they won't look at complaint and also welcome tell me that I can't claim via their underwriters as they didn't sell.my insurance. Has anybody heard of Citi rejecting a PPI complaint due to it being a Hire Purchase? ????

Link to post
Share on other sites

does it give the associates underwriters on your agreement?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Alison I've done that,

 

 

written to chief executive office.

 

 

I have a phone number for Citi Ppi.

 

 

They have been quite helpful but the dept you need doesn't take phone calls so they say

BUT if you moan enough they will phone you back.

 

 

I phoned Citi today and couldn't get much out of them except that from what I could piece together

they are saying that as they sold the Hire Purchase and all the LIABILITIES to Welcome then it's down to them.

 

 

Not convinced but the chap told me yesterday that this is the procedure they always do with Hire Purchase agreements!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

they sold associates /citi credit cards to Opus/newday and try this nonsense with these

 

but its citi who eventually cough

 

you need to persist in writing imo

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I just think that Citi are dodging it. I was hoping somebody on here had heard of them referring Hire Purchase back to company they sold it too!!!!!

 

quite common with associates credit cards, virtually unmentioned with hp bar that one thread as above

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you think it's Citi who are responsible as I haven't got a clue anymore. Citi are sending me letter they have sent to Welcome so I hope that may shed some light on it. I think I am stuffed as if it keeps dragging on then both will say go to FOS and as they both know as of 2001 neither of them were regulated so FOS won't do anything

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets see what the letter says

 

if citi bought assoc hp and then sold to welcome then I would say citi responsible

 

if assoc hp portfolio sold direct to welcome then welcome responsible

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well had a copy of letter from Citi today which they have sent to Welcome but doesn't explain why Welcome should look again at my complaint. I'm just thinking I may ask both Welcome and Citi for SAR as one of them must have more details or proof that they aren't liable for the mis sell of PPI

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pulling my hair out. Looks like Citi have had enough of me pestering them and WONT explain why it has to go back to Welcome Finance but if I'm not happy (which I'm not) then I must go to FOS. This is what I was dreading as they know aswell as I do that FOS won't do anything as its before December 2001. I know exactly what Welcome finance will do now that it's been sent back to them, NOTHING!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you establish who the assoc underwriters were?

 

SAR to both may be the only option

 

to see what if anything these throw up

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well had ANOTHER call to Citi today and spoke to team leader at PPI queries. He told me that when they sold my Hire Purchase to Welcome that Welcome accepted all liabilities including the PPI AND gap insurances. Is this true do you think???? Also If it does go back to Welcome could I claim from their underwriters Aviva??? I have sent SAR to both of them to see what that throws up

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you get that in writing?

 

 

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...