Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I am a local authority tenant and was in a 3 bed house. At the end of last year, my last child moved out and so did my spouse as we are now going through a divorce which meant that I was in the house alone and decided that I needed to downsize not only for myself but to offer the property to a family that needed it. I registered on the local authority housing bidding site as i was asked to do and I was accepted and given a priority banding as I was downsizing and they were desperate for my house. I have been extremely lucky and after about 6 weeks was accepted for a new build from a housing association via the housing gateway. I viewed the property 2 weeks ago and had to sign the tenancy last week when they were doing bulk signups for the houses and that is the day I moved. In between viewing and sign up, I contacted my current local authority landlord and asked how I give notice as I had been accepted for a property I had bid on and was moving.  The lady told me how to do it online and then said that I needed to give a full weeks notice which wasnt a problem as I had enough time.  (I was also told a weeks notice was what i would need to give by another staff member about a month ago when I phoned up for another housing related question.  I dont have any of this in writing.) I have now moved, handed back the keys and I am now being told that I need to give 4 weeks notice which I cannot afford. I hav e spoken to the council again explaining that I was told a week and that to be honest, if I knew they were going to charge me 4 weeks I would not have been able to move and would have stayed in the other house.  I thought I was doing the right thing. They said that calls are recorded and they asked me when I called in and was told a week and they would listen to the telephone conversation and if it was correct what I was told, they would see what they could do to reduce the notice period. They have now emailed me back and said that they have listened to the conversation and the lady said 4 weeks notice and I am liable for 4 weeks rent.  Now I may well of misheard her when I thought she said a full weeks notice she may have said 4 weeks notice but I am sure she said a full weeks notice and i was told a week by another member of staff a few weeks ago. I have emailed her back and said that I may of misheard but I would like to listen to the phone recording myself.  As yet they havent responded. I think its unreasonable for them to make me give 4 weeks when I had to sign the new tenancy with little notice or loose the property.  And it was all done through their gateway, and they will have a tenant in there pretty much straight away getting rent from them. I am on a very low income, I am on my own, I have serious medical issues and I am really getting myself stressed out over this. Any advice would be so appreciated.  Can I insist they let me listed to the recording? RH  
    • Susan Crichton is at the Inquiry today. She seems to have trouble remembering a lot of things but seems to find it easier if it's something that shows her in a good light.
    • Send them a letter of claim straightaway. No point hanging around. Given 14 days in the letter of claim and if they haven't paid you by then, issue the claim on day 15. The amount of time is more than adequate for them to get going. Post your draft letter of claim here. A look at. Then log onto the MoneyClaim website and start preparing your claim and post your particulars of claim here for us to have a look at. Don't bluff. No point in it.
    • That's what we thought, but the store manager is inferring that, as the jeweller we used was not a member of the NJA, no one  would give what he said, any credence. The Jeweller we used is in fact, a long established, well respected company, with 2 store and rather than just being a retailer, they craft the most exquisite jewellery inhouse!  I wish my Fiancé would have bought from them rather than H Samuel! Do you think we do need to get another report from and NJA accredited Jeweller ?
    • Really pleased that you won. UKPC know that you have supremacy of contract but still they persist because so many motorists blindly pay them.   Muppets.
  • 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

Been paying 'managed loan' Merged debts since 2006 - is this a dn?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2811 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

Normally once a debt has been assigned (sold on) there is usually something wrong with it or its simply not financially viable to litigate it.If a DCA failed to comply with your CCA request then as Imp states you would be fully entitled to withhold payment until compliance.

 

As stated your debt remains with the OC until such time it is assigned then that option can be risky..even though technically correct...however if the case is that the agreements cant be provided..this puts you on the higher ground and adds leverage to possible make a discounted F&FS or drop your payment to what you can comfortably afford.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a DCA failed to comply with your CCA request then as Imp states you would be fully entitled to withhold payment until compliance.

 

My reading of that post was to stop paying. Period.

 

The debt is still owned by HSBC as I made clear from post #1.

 

I got the impression from posts that that this being a "merged loan" made it somehow illegal or unenforceable?

 

Is that only the case then if a loan, credit card and current account overdraft are lumped together and then sold on to a DCA?

 

One of the reasons I asked about the Default/default issue was because I am already on low repayments

but am tiring of it being on my credit files when I defaulted over 10 years ago.

 

Sorry, I mean "Managed Loan" not merged loan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are certainly lots of issues if you go read the managed loan threads here.

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

I've trawled those threads 3 times now and there's nothing that appears to correlate with my issues on this managed loan.

 

 

If you could highlight one that would be great.

 

 

However, Citizen B In a thread on the managed loans posted this a few years ago:

 

"managed loans, hateful things and very cleverly used by HSBC.

You automatically lost the protection of the CCA1974 when they rolled that up

and any errors on the agreement in respect of the loan that was rolled up alongside it,

would also be lost in the mists of time."

 

Is that correct? It backs up the response I got on my own CCA request in 2010.

 

If so, presumably there's nothing more can be done.

I will report back on the SAR although I'm not sure how that will assist regardless (?).

 

I still have the question about the CRA reporting and i'm wondering if anyone has an answer to this question?

If not, can cag point in the right direction?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So now you know

I,d complain anyway

See what they say

 

As for the cra file

So you were never defaulted?

 

I wonder if you were and it was never reported??

 

Await the sar for now

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

I wasn't formally Defaulted in the sense they didn't record a Default on my credit files in 2006.

 

It reappeared as an AP last year.

 

I did default though, as they merged all defaulted debts (loan, cc and overdraft into the managed loan).

 

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that if they should have recorded a Default

(minimum payments / frozen interest repayments)

then the can be told to remove data from credit files.

Is this the case?

Edited by coly coly
Link to post
Share on other sites

there have been several good results whereby the AP should have had a default registered correctly at the time of the third missed payment.

 

 

pers , once you have the info from the sar in your hand and we can confirm things

pers i'd be complaining to HSBC that there should have been a default registered at the third AP marker [lets say]

 

 

then the debt atleast would not now be harming your file....

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

That's right. Although they didn't file the AP at all until recently, so the sequence of events were:

 

2000 took out overdraft and credit card

2003 took out personal loan

2006 defaulted and then put on Managed Loan merging the 3 types of debt

2010 CCA'd them but told it was all merged and therefore the CCA did not apply

2015 AP account filed on my CRFs

 

I have sent the SAR so will see what that comes back with (hopefully they will send lots of microfiche documents going back past 6 years).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit

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

Edit

 

It doesn't surprise that your remarks were edited.

 

Post #24 sensibly highlighted the danger of simply withholding payments in these circumstances. Great care is needed and calling people "cash cows" and encouraging them to stop paying and potentially making matters worse is reckless.

 

You also expressed surprise that the debts were merged. Yet that was been clear from the outset.

 

I have requested my SAR and have also revisited the CCA request.

 

 

For the present that is all I am being advised to do by more knowledgeable contributors on this forum and I will report back when I have more information in which to base a viable dispute with HSBC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I attach a letter just received from HSBC and a copy document enclosed with it which they sent to me in 2012 called a "Final Demand."

 

 

Firstly, does anyone know if they SHOULD have formally Defaulted my accounts (there were 3 in total, a credit card, personal loan and overdraft) in 2006 when I first defaulted on my repayments?

 

 

Secondly, is the Final Demand a formal Default Notice then? They appear t be saying that it is and that it doesn't matter if I defaulted 10 years ago, what matters is me receiving the Final Demand in 2012 for the purposes of CRA reporting of a Default. Seems grossly unfair to me. Any thoughts?

 

 

Thirdly, HSBC deny that amalgamated accounts are unlawful and put to me to proof / legal authority. They state that consolidating the 3 types of debt was "merely an administrative step."

 

 

Finally, if I have inadvertently left anything personal on the attachments on this thread do let me know (!) as I have tried hard to conceal all but the necessary dates and vital info.

fd..pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

nasty buggers.

 

 

what always urgh's me about these managed loans is they merge them under the bank account number

not the Card nor the Loan

so they know full well theres nothing you can do about it, to put it bluntly.

as its then not covered by the consumer credit act..

 

 

however in this instance I see light at the end of the tunnel....

 

 

I totally disagree with the statement...

the amalgamation of three three accounts was merely an administrative step to facilitate the transfer of the accounts for debt recovery purposes.

 

 

the word merely being their attempt to lighten the issue.and get away with it

no that's wrong.

 

 

the individual accounts should be reported separately to the CRA providers

thus atleast one of them would not not be showing.

 

 

they should have defaulted all three account when you paid your third short payment

and stepchange should have sorted out that that happened then too.

 

 

today there has been another good win whereby old defaults were not registered in a time ly fashion etc etc

and it went to the FOS

 

 

the fos awarded compensation and the wiping of the credit files.

and although not the same bank

all the interest back etc etc,

 

 

it is worthy do get all the info and keep pushing.

 

 

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

they should have defaulted all three account when you paid your third short payment

and stepchange should have sorted out that that happened then too.dx

 

 

Back in 2006? That's what I think, but do they have any mileage arguing that it only matters if the account is passed to collection? Between 2006-12 it was managed by First Direct on the managed loan.

 

 

 

it is worthy do get all the info and keep pushing. dx

 

 

I have sent a SAR and will hang fire on escalating to the FOS until that info arrives, although HSBC may try and pull the 6 year DPA excuse. I do have old CCCS DMP statements from 2008-ish though which refer to the First Direct managed loan. First Direct refused to accept the CCCS DMP but the CCCS budgeted the managed loan into my repayment schedule (as mentioned I came off the CCCS DMP).

 

 

Is the Final Demand a Default Notice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe on a bank account that there is no DN so it might well be the final demand yes

 

 

but IMHO that's all immaterial

the individual debts would have been defaulted I bet for them to have need to merge them.

so that's unfair too.

 

 

it shouldn't be showing and CCCS are to blame on that too.

 

 

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...