Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
    • At a key lecture in the City of London, the shadow chancellor will also vow to reform the Treasury.View the full article
    • Despite controversy China's Temu is becoming a global online shopping force.View the full article
    • The retailer has come under fire for an advert showing motorcyclists wearing trainers and doing wheelies.View the full article
  • 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
      • 160 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

Welcome secured loans/charge - sold to Alpha/Prime -repo received - ***Claim Dismissed***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1656 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

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

yes please

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

ans via pm or email as these required details will contain pers info...

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

on the sheets

what are the A/C no's for the statements

and the breakdown you found

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

Account no for first PDF account ending in 661

Second PDF account ending in 978

Third PDF account ending in 722

Also pm you this morning

 

I have been reading through all phonecall transcripts from Loan ending 984 and have come across lots of calls of ex wife to this company Settlement figure was £25,475.37 on 15/01/15 when she phoned from solicitors office after divorce.

 

Have you come across anything that you think you could be missing dx?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yea a bigger brain for me

 

 

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

having consulted those in know

as you are both in the same boat

it appears that the first secured loans and its resultant charge on land registry stands good for all the latter loans that refinanced the chain

as long as it was a chain till when paid off.

 

 

now, if through all the loans, the various insurance/penalty charges/ppi when calculated properly

might well give cause to persuading welcome that no balance exists now

and 'its paid off' so they might remove it.

 

 

discovering how much is the difficulty

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 worked out things quickly and roughly on the amount of Ppi paid plus the interest on them extra pages I found

and I'm bordering the settlement figure.

 

Have not calculated each individual rate of interest on each loan or added any penalty charges.

 

Dx I know you know the right way to go through things.

 

I'm just second guessing I suppose without knowing how to break everything down individually like you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the issue with simply adding all you can see for PPI+the interest that that cost you

is its very difficult to calculate what was left at the time of refinance & what rebates they gave.

 

however if

- by that basic method [using whole figures quoted for PPI+INT Verses rebates} is more that the existing registered charge

then yes it would give a very rough ballpark figure and might cause them to 'come to a deal'

 

i'll forget all the reclaiming

if you remove the charge.

 

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

I await your thorough calculations to see what the real figures are.

 

Yours could be well over the loan or at worse a shortfall of what's still apparently owed.

 

Then I could still be in bad street owing them too.

 

Their statements aren't the easiest to understand are they?

 

And also by going on some of the call transcripts I have they should never have refinanced most loans as they were already in arrears and not being paid on time and chased by welcome frequently

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then another route to further support things still work in progress is for you to investigate a claim of irresponsible lending

Use the cag search box

Threads are mainly in the pdl forun

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

Thanks for that info dx will take a look. As one things for sure they definitely inflated house value on one of the loans and there was already charges on the property. Are there any template letters to do with it? Who will I be writing to when all the totals are together. This site has really been informative. I can't thank you all enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IR is a unique situation to each person so no template fits that I'm aware of

But you'll see many in the pdl forum take the same tract

 

As for the welcome stuff

Twill goto head office

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

IR is something I should also be looking into. Welcome claim that they re-write my loan to facilitate lower payments but the payment due wasn't lower.......

 

I will use the CISHEET today and work out what my reclaim should be, after a quick look based on a 13k balance that they claim is outstanding I would agree to a 3k settlement. They would never take it though, I'm sure they would prefer to sit on the charge and wait it out.

 

I often wonder how they would defend their actions in front of a county court judge, I do feel its the only way to get anywhere with them, at least the mediation would be interesting...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

very close just doing the last loan and its PPI

 

 

come out is that sadly

even though their statements are in some areas wrong/poor

each was rebated ok

 

 

so nothing there

until the last loan

doing the spready now

 

 

certainly a good case for mass irresponsible lending mind

from day one

 

 

notes.

1st Its Worthy to note

where they did not get you on PPI/life

they got you on MIF

.

Loan ...851 PPI Charged

£196.89 PCM settled for £4691.05

11-10-01 £5000 loan

11-10-01 £1603.22 INS PPI prem ADV [debit]

11-10-01 £765.11 Disp of FEES [debit]

total loan 7369.33

PPI

PPIPCM=21.75% = £42.83 on £196.89 payment

total you paid for PPI was £1441.70

total charged for PPI £1603.22 - not worth bothering about.

as you also got £1005 back for 'fees'

...

loan ...789 PPI Charged

10-06-03 £1804.68 INS prems [credit]

10-06-03 £1005.00 FEE Disbursement [Credit]

10-06-03 £9809.68 Loan Disp [Debit]

10-06-03 £4691.05 Settlement/payoff [624851]

10-06-03 £627.93 Ins Rebate [credit][624851]

10-06-03 £342.84 fees rebate [credit]

10-06-03 £1804.68 INS PREM ADV [debit]

10-06-03 £1005. Disp of FEES [Debit]

10-06-03 £7000 LOAN DISP to Cust

PPI

10-06-03 PCM was £231.01

PPIPCM=18.4% = £42.50 on £231.01

total charged for PPI was £1804.68

total you actually paid = £1335.57 - not worth it

as you got fees back too

LOAN ....978 MIF CHARGED

31-03-05 £11423.67 rewrite disp

31-03-05 £1343.79 FEE Disp [rebate]

31-03-05 £10079.88 Settlement payment credit

31-03-05 £511.50 Settlement penalty interest Debit

31-03-05 £693.27 INS rebate credit

NO PPI but has MIF & ACCEPTANCE FEE WHEREBY INT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED ON THEM - AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOIDED RE:

however loan only ran 4mts nothing worth it

LOAN ....216 MIF Charged

14-07-05 £12298.84 transfer/settlement

14-07-05 £1587.87 Fess Disbursal [debit]

14-07-05 £1277.71 fees rebate

14-07-05 £10298.84 Transfer credit

14-07-05 £12.02 SET'L PEN INT debit

14-07-05 £13886.71 Loan Disp

NO PPI but has MIF & ACCEPTANCE FEE WHEREBY INT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED ON THEM - AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOIDED RE:

however loan only ran 5mts nothing worth it

LOAN ...722 MIF Charged

29-12-05 £13114.41 Settlement Payment

29-12-05 £1530.23 Fees rebate

29-12-05 £1677.59 disp of fees [debit]

29-12-05 £14792 REWRITE DISP

21-02-06 £13712.03 set'l cheque to cust

21-02-06 £336.43 penalty fees

21-02-06 £1666.25 Fees REbate

NO PPI but has MIF & ACCEPTANCE FEE WHEREBY INT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED ON THEM - AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOIDED RE:

however loan only ran 10mts nothing worth it

Loan ....661

31-10-06 £1784.62 INS PREM Credit

31-10-06 £235 Fee Disp credit

31-10-06 £8019.62 loan disp to cust

NO PPI but has MIF & ACCEPTANCE FEE WHEREBY INT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED ON THEM - AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOIDED RE:

however loan only ran 6mts nothing worth it

Loan ....303

03-04-07 £293.48 set pen int

03-04-07 £1204.73 INS rebate

03-04-07 £288.33 Fees rebate

03-04-07 £2600.15 INS premiums credit

03-04-07 £2600.15 INS premiums debit

03-04-07 FEE DISP credit

03-04-07 £235 Fees disp [debit]

03-04-07 £11767 Loan Disp to Cust

PPI

however loan only ran 6mts nothing worth it

Loan ....661

05-10-07 £12826.25 transfer credit [set'l]

05-10-07 £460.73 SET'L pen Int Debit

05-10-07 £1896.39 INS rebate credit

05-10-07 £225.24 FEE rebate debit

05-10-07 £460.72 Pen Fees debit

05-10-07 £225.24 FEE REBATE [credit]

05-10-07 £4506.20 INS PREM [credit]

05-10-07 £235 FEE DISP Credit

05-10-07 £26741.20 Loan Disp DEBIT

PPI

however loan only ran 12mts nothing worth it

Loan 3236984

30/09/08 £30514.52 TFR BAL FROM

29/08/08 £2307.70 PPP insurances credit

29/08/08 £30514.52 DISB transfer

PPIPCM = 7.56%

working on spready 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

imho you have a strong IR case

esp all the loans that were

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...