Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
    • Frankly I think you should go to a hearing unless you feel especially nervous . If you have any worries then you should follow our link to find out about a county court familiarisation visit     You shouldn't forget that county Court judgements are very helpful but they are not binding. They are only persuasive.  It is difficult to see you losing but it might be better to be there in order to counter any arguments from the other side
  • 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

sunny loans with FOS...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2934 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

The ombudsman have investigated my loan from Sunny but have decided that is was not irresponsible lending.

Since I lied on the application form (Said I was earning £1250 per month when in fact I was earning £0)

it was acceptable for them to have taken that information in good faith.

 

Sunny did perform a credit check

- but despite my 11 defaults and unpaid payday loans from 5 other lenders amongst other debts

decided I was an acceptable risk for a £400 loan.

 

Will have to try and approach the DCA and see if I can get a full and final settlement

that includes the removal of the debt from my credit report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did an ombudmsan say that, or did an adjudicator, because it goes against the very meaning of responsible lending. By their remarks, you can go to any lender, say you were earning thousands, and get a loan and no checks would need to be made.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have appealed it because I believe it is an adjudicator

- I received the email around 5:30pm,

 

 

I called straight away but they had left so I could not discuss it today so emailed my response.

 

That was my first point

- I said I worked in a university HR department but actually I am studying HR at a university.

If I was asked for a statement or just one wage slip I would not have been able to supply anything.

 

 

On the income and expenditure I put £0 except for food and transport and nothing was ever queried.

 

My second point was they said they did a credit check

but I had 5+ outstanding payday loans, defaults and debts

- every report scores very poor.

But, I did apply and accept the loan so I am to blame as well.

 

 

I'll see what the ombudsman come back to me with

and if that fails then I will try and negotiate a settlement with the DCA

that includes removal from my credit report

 

 

- I imagine that would be unlikely though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today has been a day of email tennis with the ombudsman, they initially stood by their decision say:

 

"You’ve said that Elevate didn’t verify any of this information,

however Elevate wouldn’t need to and the assumption would be that your answer were true, correct and honest.

 

 

I can see that Elevate did ask you the necessary questions,

as they wouldn’t be able to lend to you without any form of assessment.

 

 

So while there is some responsibility for Elevate to check this information

there is equal responsibility on you to provide accurate information to them.

 

 

Elevate have confirmed that they did carry out credit checks

and did find some adverse information

- so they reduced the amount they lent to you.

 

 

The loan was lent to you because based on the information you provided it was deemed affordable."

 

I said I wanted to appeal this and have been asked to provide my bank statements

showing a student account £2000 overdrawn and the details from my credit report.

I have sent this but I doubt I'll hear anything further today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today has been a day of email tennis with the ombudsman, they initially stood by their decision say:

 

"You’ve said that Elevate didn’t verify any of this information,

however Elevate wouldn’t need to and the assumption would be that your answer were true, correct and honest.

 

 

I can see that Elevate did ask you the necessary questions,

as they wouldn’t be able to lend to you without any form of assessment.

 

 

So while there is some responsibility for Elevate to check this information

there is equal responsibility on you to provide accurate information to them.

 

 

Elevate have confirmed that they did carry out credit checks

and did find some adverse information

- so they reduced the amount they lent to you.

 

 

The loan was lent to you because based on the information you provided it was deemed affordable."

 

I said I wanted to appeal this and have been asked to provide my bank statements

showing a student account £2000 overdrawn and the details from my credit report.

I have sent this but I doubt I'll hear anything further today.

 

How wrong of them to lend to you if their checks should have revealed your adverse financial position ; they should write off what they wrongly lent.

BUT

 

Then you will have caused them to suffer a loss.

If you dishonestly made a false representation (lying about your income) in order to make a gain, or to expose them to a risk of loss :

What is to stop them reporting you for "fraud by false representation"?

 

Tread warily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a mess I have created myself, I was worried about raising any kind of complaint because of the lies I had told on the initial application form. It was only after debt advice that I did, I was told it was extremely unlikely I would be reported or have action taken against me as it would highlight that suitable checks were not being carried out before loans were issued.

 

It is something I am concerned about but so far it has not been mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well the adjudicator dealing with my complaint has changed their opinion and has now requested that Sunny remove any charges and interest, and remove any adverse history from my credit report.

 

This will remove a default from experian, and remove late payment notifications from equifax and call credit.

 

This will leave just the loan amount of £400 to be repaid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

new thread created

 

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Alternativly

issue a small claims? :p

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunny finally responded, and they have not accepted the adjudicators assessment and have requested an ombudsman to review the case. Don't know what the outcome will be on this.

 

My credit reports have just updated, on Equifax and Call Credit the loan shows settled (After 4 missed payments), where as on Experian a default has been applied. I thought maybe it was just a delay on Equifax and Call Credit but Experian had the default in Feb. Don't know why they differ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The ombudsman have upheld my complaint for irresponsible lending and instructed Sunny to remove all interest and charges, and remove all record of the loan from my credit file.

 

In an unexpected move Sunny have cleared the principle amount as well and emailed me stating I need take no further action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done

dx

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...