Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Want to complain for Irresponsible lending - Need advice **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2566 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

id personally given the adjudicator another bit of time - in my cases, I have had 3 cases where the adjudicator has changed their mind after deciding against me. There is no just way I cannot see you not winning this case though given the long term nature of the lending

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

- in my cases, I have had 3 cases where the adjudicator has changed their mind after deciding against me.

how, with new evidence or going through things again, or...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

The adjudicator is currently reassessing his decision... Hopefully my email hasn't upset him too much. I was very respectful and thanked him for his time looking at things so not to appear as though I was dismissive. I'm more than happy to wait and see what he says, I just hope the extra information I've given helps but if not I'll have to go to ombudsman... But I'll let you know before I do anything. I'm just hoping that he sees things from my perspective... I'm not trying to rip anyone off but to use the fact that I always paid on time as a reason to state that QQ didn't know I was financially struggling is a bit off side I think.

:)** Any opinion expressed by me is given with the best intentions - But I could be wrong so bear that in mind**:)

Missed Call Checker - http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/077/m

Link to post
Share on other sites

in one case, I submitted new/additional evidence (although I suspect this just gave them an excuse to right a decision they knew was wrong). In another case, I basically just kept asking the adjudicator to keep looking at points she appeared not to have missed or not referenced in the decision she made ( I believe she just took a lazy approach). I n the third case with Wonga, I got lucky as they did not adhere to the original adjudication decision in the agreed timescale which allowed me to argue that I only took a deal with them because they said they would settle quickly, when they didn't, I got the case re-opened

 

 

....this was in three cases out of around 11 I had lodged with FOS - the rest I all won....

Link to post
Share on other sites

cheers for that info. well done on the wins.

keep at it then multay. dont worry about 'upsetting' the fos, they are supposed to be objective...! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Guys,

 

A small update.

 

The adjudicator did indeed change his mind and agreed with me. He knocked off a couple of the initial loans which I think is in line with current guidelines about no more than three rollovers.

So the amount he proposed to QQ was quite significant.

They have now come back again and made an offer - A very small one ignoring the proposal made by the adjudicator - Which I have rejected.

I've written to the adjudicator and explained my current financial situation and that I think QQ are simply attempting to employ delaying tactics in the hope that I give up out of desperation. They have ignored his findings even though I was prepared to compromise. I've asked what the next step is but think it will probably be the Ombudsman now, this has dragged on for 6 months with QQ delaying at every turn...

 

M

:)** Any opinion expressed by me is given with the best intentions - But I could be wrong so bear that in mind**:)

Missed Call Checker - http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/077/m

Link to post
Share on other sites

The adjudicator did indeed change his mind and agreed with me
good.

has qq formally rejected the adj decision?

 

if you agree with the adj decision, then you shldnt need to escalate it.

afaik, qq shld either accept the adj decision, or if not then escalate it themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites

good.

has qq formally rejected the adj decision?

 

if you agree with the adj decision, then you shldnt need to escalate it.

afaik, qq shld either accept the adj decision, or if not then escalate it themselves?

 

Hi, I don't totally agree with him. I think they should refund everything but the totals aren't massively different. I don't know if it's a formal rejection, more of an offer that suits them.

Adjudicator is putting the original offer to them again with a short reply period and if they still don't accept, it will go to the ombudsman.

 

Thanks

M

:)** Any opinion expressed by me is given with the best intentions - But I could be wrong so bear that in mind**:)

Missed Call Checker - http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/077/m

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adjudicator is putting the original offer to them again with a short reply period and if they still don't accept, it will go to the Ombudsmanlink3.gif.

ok. seems then that if qq then dont accept the adj decision, they will have to formally reject it and so escalate it to an ombuds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi,

 

Quick update.

 

Adjudicator went back to them after I refused their second offer.

 

 

They then came back to me with a significant increase and an admission that

"some loans may have been irresponsibly lent".

 

 

It's nowhere close to the amount I think I'm entitled to so I rejected and it is now with the Ombudsman

- It's a big gamble on my part but I don't see why they should be allowed to flout the rules

and get away with it.

 

 

QQ have stalled, delayed and refused to provide info time and time again in the hope I will settle

but I'm sticking with it despite the distress this is causing me.

 

 

I'm hoping to get a decision this week and fingers crossed it will go in my favour,

if not I'm not sure what else I can do...

 

 

Thanks,

M

:)** Any opinion expressed by me is given with the best intentions - But I could be wrong so bear that in mind**:)

Missed Call Checker - http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/077/m

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Update..

. it didn't go to the ombudsman in the end.

 

The adjudicator revised his proposal further and I got close to the amount I initially calculated.

 

A significant payout from them that more than covered the interest I paid but possibly not the 8% interest on top.

 

I was pretty happy with the outcome,

 

so give it a try and don't be put off by the hurdles..

 

. if they didn't try to profiteer in the first place,

there would nothing to claim back!!!

Thanks for your help everyone... M

:)** Any opinion expressed by me is given with the best intentions - But I could be wrong so bear that in mind**:)

Missed Call Checker - http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/077/m

Link to post
Share on other sites

good result then

glad to help

 

 

don't forget to help us help everyone too.

 

 

 

 

The Consumer Action Group needs help to cover its expenses.

You could help by making a money contribution to http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/paypal.php?go=donate

or by downloading our toolbar and using it to search the web instead of your normal search engine:- http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/cag_plugin.php

Please help.

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...