Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.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
      • 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

glo loan guarantor


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2773 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

Hi

 

You guys were great giving me information a couple of years ago and i hope you can help my friend.

 

He stupidly went as a guarantoor for his friend for a glo loan and it was supposed to be repaid in full the next month as his friend promised the money in the bank would be realeased to him and he would then pay the loan off in full.

 

As you have probably guessed the friends money in the bank was non existant, the firend then defaulted and the guarantor who is on a DAS (like myself) didn't know he couldn't be a guarantor until he spoke to his advisor who has now told him if Glo take him to court the Accountants in bankruptcy will make him bankrupt and his home is at risk.

 

He is totally devastated, i feel so sorry for him as i didn't know either that you couldn't be a guarantor but shouldn't this has showed up on the credit checks which their webiste says 'after they have carried out check' glo would get back to them.

 

He has spoken to the police about the lies told by the friend but they say it is a civil matter and he has no money to pursue this. The person who took out the loan as i've since found out owes money to everyone from council tax to tv licence but they have a house which the mother left to them when she died and there is no mortgage on this.

 

Can anyone suggest anything as i am getting really worried about my firends mental state as he has tried so hard to repay his debt and keep his house, hence the DAS arrangement and now may lose it afterall. It wouldn't help his house being sold as Glo would still not get their money as it would probably pay his own creditors.

 

Any advice would be fantastic

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon there.

 

Please get your friend to come onto the forum and advise us of what the full situation is.

Its best for them, you and us so we can give good information.

 

Thread also moved to Debt forums

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the creditor should have carried out due diligence upon allowing him to be a guarantor

they'll lose handsdown if they try and enforce this.

 

that accountant wants shooting and should know this already

instead of trying to frighten the be-jesus out of the poor bloke

tell him to forget about it.

 

let them take it to court if they are brave enough..

I think not!!

 

and I bet if he reads the letters PROPERLY

it doesn't say WILL anything.

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

Interestingly, not much on the interwebs for Glo... Although I have heard of them.

DX is probably right, i suspect naff all will happen, but do keep an eye out for your friend.

 

How much is owing?

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for responding,

the due diligence comment gave him some hope

 

 

here is the whole situation,

i'm being secretary as he is not great with computers.

 

In September he was approached by a mutual friend, we'll call her E

she had just got a new job but was needing money and had the chance of a loan

but needed a home owner,

she was waiting for the bank to pay out on something her mothers lawyer had set up when her mother died but it couldn't be released until docs were signed.

He agreed as she had promised to repay it in full 8 weeks later.

 

He gave her an income and expenditure and Glo phoned him to ask what type of person E was

and as she had always been okay, he agreed she would pay the loan back no problem

and signed a form saying he was guarantor (he doesn't have a copy of this).

 

She got the loan in the September and Glo were continually phoning him to keep him up to date, which he got fed up with as they were saying one thing and she said something else.

 

 

When he started getting default notices he pulled her up and she explained she had lost the new job and was having to set up a new repayment plan, even phoned him to say she was sitting waiting for them to call her back to go over the income and expenditure. (Very plausible)

 

 

She told him that she paid the new amount at the beginning of the month and that is why he was getting automatated texts as they had started sending email.

 

He then appraoched his money advisor who set him up on the DAS Scheme and was then informed that under no circumstances should he have passed a credit check and he couldn't add another debt to the DAS.

 

 

He was told that if Glo did take him to court he could be made bankrupt by the Accountants in Bankruptcy for taking on more credit.

This would mean losing his home.

 

He then had a statement for the year and E hasn't actually paid anything apart from the 1st interest payment.

 

 

The company appears to be the trading name of Provident Personal Credit ltd and as you know Provident's interest is high. The debt now stands at £1769.13.

 

His money advisor said it might be worth him writing to them explaining even if taken to court he has no money to pay her loan AND if made bankrupt they still wouldn't get any money but she has a house that is worth between 70 and 90k and there is no mortgage on it as her mother paid it off years ago.

 

It is the continually circles of texts, phone calls and dreading the postman arriving that is making life unbearable and he cannot see an end to this unless Glo release him as a guarantor.

Anyone think he has any chance of getting Glo to do this.

 

ps all the letters he has do not have will in them and funnily enough apart from one issued that was threatening court action and had both of them named on it.

 

 

He hasn't heard anything about that since she apparently made a new payment plan with Glow but hasn't even kept to the first payment on that .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest roaringmouse

-Please take this the right way. From what you say, I believe your friend to be a vulnerable person. I also believe they did not understand the situation nor what they were agreeing to in reality.

 

I am very curious as to why this loan company kept updating him at the start?

 

I do NOT think their home is at risk at all. The loan company is effectively lending to two people - the borrow and the guarantor. In the event of the borrower defaulting they are entitled to ask the guarantor to pay and thus they must carry out checks before agreeing to satisfy themselves that the other borrower (ie the guarantor) is in a position to take out the loan and and repay it. From what you have said, one credit check would have stopped this before it started.

 

It would be thrown out of court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

-Please take this the right way. From what you say, I believe your friend to be a vulnerable person. I also believe they did not understand the situation nor what they were agreeing to in reality.

 

I am very curious as to why this loan company kept updating him at the start?

 

I do NOT think their home is at risk at all. The loan company is effectively lending to two people - the borrow and the guarantor. In the event of the borrower defaulting they are entitled to ask the guarantor to pay and thus they must carry out checks before agreeing to satisfy themselves that the other borrower (ie the guarantor) is in a position to take out the loan and and repay it. From what you have said, one credit check would have stopped this before it started.

 

It would be thrown out of court.

 

Thank you, he is such a nice person and just thought he was helping a friend out, i think we are all a bit stunned by what she has done to him as none of us seen this coming. However it will never happen again and we'll have to wait and see if a letter to them will help.

 

Thanks for all your responses

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...