Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • 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  
  • 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

Wage Day Advance Moorcroft Debt Recovery


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2953 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

A close family member has received a letter from Moorcroft re a loan they had with WDA.

They were suffering financial difficulty and informed WDA of this, the amount was total payable £278. Letters e-mails and financial statements were sent to WDA to make offer for re-payment, this was sent by Royal Mail signed for del, which was received and signed for by WDA in May 2014.

WDA had requested they send them Bank Statements which was refused by relative as they had sent them financial statements and step change docs.

To date no agreement has been reached, the last contact with WDA was 16th June 2014.The amount now outstanding according to Moorcroft letter is now £480. 00.

 

 

Moorcroft are threatening a home visit and also they are willing via their client WDA to offer a discount from the outstanding balance. This means that if you are able to pay an acceptable lump sum we /they will not attempt to recover the remaining balance of the debt. In addition your credit file will be marked as partially satisfied and our staff will be happy to explain what this means when you contact us.

 

 

Question 1, is what should they do next.

Question 2. Should Moorcroft be ignored and solely deal with WDA.

 

 

All information and assistance will be gratefully received.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on whether there other debts to deal with, which are more of a priority.

 

Moorcroft just act as an additional credit control function of companies, trying to gain payment or a payment arrangement. WDA will still own the debt and at this stage it is being administered by Moorcroft. A doorstep visit means nothing, as it will just be a local agent on commission simply trying to come to an arrangement.

 

Partial settlement on a credit record will make it difficult gaining any credit or some services, until this particular default record comes off after 6 years. While they don't sell on any part of the debt written off, they know it is a red flag on a credit record. It might be better coming to a payment arrangement, if there are other debts.

 

Before any settlement or payment arrangement is entered into, i would be asking for a breakdown calculation of the debt, with full details of interest and charges added.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad debt. Hence the discount and being sold multiple times

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

Hi

Slightly different tack here but first.

Did the relative have any other pay day loans on the go at the same time as WDA? Were they in financial difficulties prior to taking out the loan? Did WDA do a full credit check before offering the loan.

 

After they informed WDA that they were in difficulty, it would have been incumbent on WDA to offer a reasonable acceptable amount which could then have been negotiated. As they refused to accept proper documents as a statement of truth (they had no absolute right to see bank statements) and did nothing to help the situation, I feel a complaint should be initiated.

 

Going from £278 to £480 suggest that WDA have added on charges and interest whilst knowing the customer was in financial difficulties should be challenged. Moorcroft should not be adding any charges as they are paid on collection, not prior to it.

 

If you were to check on the Financial Ombudsman Decisions page (after doing a search for wage Day advance) you will see quite a few cases that have been upheld. you can check to see if any match the same criteria.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

 

 

Thank you for your as usual, advice and information.

Contact was made with Moorcroft by landline (Not by me) and a re arranged full/final settlement payment minus "most" charges/interest was agreed. Apparently WDA would have nothing to do with it, so they must (IMHO) sold it on for pennies. Relative happy with outcome, so thank you all again for info and assistance.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the update.

 

Unfortunately as the deal was done over the phone there is nothing to stop the remainder being sold on to another company to collect. We advice all communication in writing and to include them agreeing in writing that the deal is full and final and that the remainder will be written off and not passed to any third party for collection.

 

I am also concerned that you have given your bank details to MOORCROFT

 

It was not sold on unless you received a letter from WDA stating they had SOLD the debt.

 

None the less, you have been given some good advice to challenge the loan, you may still be able to explore reclaiming.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...