Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Probably to do with the Creditor accepting the reduced payments claim as part of the IVA. - Thats my guess anyway.  As for the mount outstanding... 60k is incredible and im pretty sure a DRO wouldnt cover that much even after the new legislation.    For you @Alfy - Please stay headstrong and stop worrying. My viewpoint on debt with debt collectors is simple. You are a figure on a spreadsheet loaded into a database for them to run a collection cycle through.  They dont care about emotions or your situation, they just care about paying off their shareholders and trying to turn a profit.  They use varying tactics to increase the pressure on you to the point where you will break. People then fall for this an either cave in to DCAs before doing their own due diligence on the debts that are purchased or turn to IVAs like you have.    They are better ways to handle this and Im glad you feel better after a good nights sleep - I hope you can keep it up. 
    • Good afternoon,    I am writing in reference to the retail dispute number ****, between myself and Newton Autos concerning the sale of a Toyota Avensis which has been found to have serious mechanical faults.    As explained previously the car was found to be faulty just six days after purchase. The car had numerous fault codes that appeared on the dash board and went into limp mode. This required assistance from the AA and this evidence has already been provided. The car continues to exhibit these faults and has been diagnosed as having faults with the fuel injectors which will require major mechanical investigation and repairs.    Newton Autos did not make me aware of any faults upon purchase of the vehicle and sold it as being in good condition.    Newton Autos have also refused to honour their responsibilities under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires them to refund the customer if the goods are found to be faulty and not fit for purpose within 30 days of purchase.    Newton Autos also refused to accept my rejection of the vehicle and refused to refund the car and accept the return of the vehicle.    It is clear to me that the car is not fit for purpose as these mechanical faults occurred so soon after purchase and have been shown to be present by both the AA and an independent mechanic.   Kind regards
    • Commercial Landlords are legally allowed to sue for early cancellation of the lease. You can only surrender your lease if your landlord agrees to your doing so. They are under no obligation even to consider your request and are entitled to refuse. You cannot use this as an excuse not to pay your rent. Your landlord is most likely to agree to your surrendering the lease if they want the property back in order to redevelop it, or if they wants to rent it to what they regards as a better tenant or at a higher rent. There are two types of surrender: Express surrender in writing. This is a written document which sets out the terms of the surrender. Implied surrender by conduct. (applies to your position) You can move out of the property you leased, simply hand your keys back and the lease will come to an end, but only if the landlord agrees to accept your surrender. Many tenants have thought they can simply post the keys through the landlord's letter box and the lease is ended. This is not true and without a document from the landlord, not only do you not know if the landlord has accepted the surrender, you also do not know on what basis they have accepted and could find they sue you for rent arrears, service charge arrears, damage to the property and compensation for your attempt to leave the property without the landlord's agreement. Unless you are absolutely certain that the landlord is agreeable to your departure, you should not attempt to imply a surrender by relying on your and the landlord's conduct.  
    • I had to deal with these last year worst DCA I have ever dealt with. Just wait for the constant threats of CCJ and how you'll lose in court and how they won't do mediation and they want the judge to question you with a load of "BIG" words to boot with the letter. My case was struck out in the end, stupidity on their part as I admitted to owing the debt in the end going through the court process was just a formality as they wouldn't let it drop despite me admitting the debt regardless. They didn't send the last part of the court paper work in so it ended up being struck out     .
    • Well, that's it then. Clear proof of the rubbish cameras. Clear proof of double dipping. G24 won't be getting a penny. Belt & braces, I would write to the address LFI has found, include the evidence of double dipping, and ask Fraser Group to call their dogs off.
  • 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

Black Horse Secured Loan / 2nd Mortgage arrears dispute FOS complaint


Baz1994
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2383 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

Ok thanks again Martin2006.

 

I have scanned all details and forwarded to FOS including relevant complaint form. I have been allocated a complaint reference.

 

Now in the process of advising Skye via letter.

 

Will keep forum up-dated for anyone else who is experiencing same with this company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You shouldnt need to inform skye, FOS will do that and request their side of things and supporting info

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well if FOS advised to then i cant see any harm in a letter confirming as such

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Complaint still with FOS who are awaiting full details from Skye.

 

I have now been advised that there will be no litigation at moment.

 

Skye have acknowledged FOS involvement.

 

After further investigation there seems to be a discrepancy with the original disputed amount transferred from Blackhorse to Skye that cannot be explained.

 

The opening arrears balance advised by Skye has increased from what BH advised yet no breakdown provided.

 

I will keep forum posted of any developments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My most recent experience with FOS has taken since july and onky now being resolved, it is a slow process due to the volume of cases they have.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

second thoughts, maybe no limit, the 25k re being business. unless that was applicable at the time?

maybe re something else, check this partic re p3 'fsa regulated mortgages', second charge being regulated.

http://www.fieldfisher.com/media/1762852/Lending-to-individuals-203384921.PDF

 

I just done a re-cap on the attached link pending a separate complaint with BH .

 

Am I reading correct that loans for £25,000 plus secured by a second charge on property will be regulated by the CCA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My most recent experience with FOS has taken since july and onky now being resolved, it is a slow process due to the volume of cases they have.

 

Ok thanks martin2006.

 

Today received final response from Skye Loans Limited in which I have now sent to FOS.

 

Still not fully addressed and I just hope the FOS Investigator (changed from Adjudicator?) will highlight this in their findings.

 

Skye still cannot provide any breakdown for the opening disputed arrears balance.

 

They have now elaborated further regarding the telephone conversation since FOS involvement but will not provide written transcript or recording.

 

Can anyone comment on my previous post # 108 thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just done a re-cap on the attached link pending a separate complaint with BH .

 

Am I reading correct that loans for £25,000 plus secured by a second charge on property will be regulated by the CCA?

seems alot depends on the particular circs (its been awhile since that post :). is it a separate matter from this thread. if so, start a new thread on it for poss more specific further input on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Original unregulated secured loan sold on / transferred to another company.

 

Previously had a dispute with arrears amount in which never fully explained.

 

Arrears amount transferred to new company totally different amount.

 

Disputed again with new company but eventually responded saying it was previous companies issue and not there's.

 

Account in dispute yet arrears management fees being charged even though they cannot prove it.

 

Can they still do this ?

 

Is there any part of the FCA handbook that states the above regarding loans in arrears ?

 

Thanks for looking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Well 6 months have passed since my last post and in which complaint was investigated (not adjudicated as previous complaints) and referred to the Ombudsman, who submitted their decision last week.

 

All seems to have been a complete waste of time apart from having all default fees reimbursed and litigation threat dropped if we stick to arrears repayment plan.

 

Regarding the disputed arrears amount, Skye could not provide any evidence of the said amount apart from an opening arrears balance. They also refused to investigate further as we had previously made an arrears complaint over 6 months ago in which the amount formed part of the latest disputed figure. Investigator / Ombudsman agreed and therefore would not entertain it, even though figure has increased.

 

Skye / Blackhorse could not provide terms of the agreement details mentioned overleaf on the Credit Agreement.

 

After further investigation I found the complete original in which clearly stated that any early Settlement of loan / mortgage a rebate of interest will be deducted in accordance with the Rebate on Early Settlement regulations 1983.

 

Skye refused the above as they don't have to adhere to, even though we had received notification from both parties advising that nothing would change. FOS Investigator / Ombudsman agreed with Skye.

 

They also agreed with Skye that any early redemption statement would not have to show any rebate of interest and therefore a completely different format as to previous supplied by BH. Skye are also refusing to provide any further Redemption Quotations as they have already provided two (first was incorrect after I checked figures) and FOS are in agreement.

 

The Ombudsman actually stated that Skye are not entitled to any interest rebate and we will in fact pay less interest as early redemption will stop any further interest accruing. Totally confused as to why then can't they provide details on their quotation? Am I missing something?

 

We also requested the freezing of interest going forward in order to assist in clearing the loan / mortgage balance quicker but was not only misunderstood by Skye but also by FOS Investigator / Ombudsman.

 

Even though we clearly stated that on numerous occasions, it was in respect of full loan balance / CMI payments and not default fee interest, all parties ignored and did not address correctly.

 

The Ombudsman agreed that though the Telephone Conversation with my OH may have caused some distress they believed that Skye followed all protocols so no harm done. Nothing as to what was said and that Skye refused / dismissed any recorded details of conversation as part of our Subject Access Request and that only provided when FOS intervened.

 

Now we fully stated all relevant FCA handbook regulations where appropriate and not even the Investigator or Ombudsman could not even be bothered to address accordingly.

 

It seems that the Ombudsman has basicaly agreed with the Investigator like for like and totally ignored or even bothered to address our individual complaint points backed by FCA handbook regulations.

 

Finally to cap it all they both stated that the disputed arrears amount was passed over by Black Horse (will start a new thread as now a separate complaint) and that it was for them to explain. Guess what, Blackhorse cannot provide details and are saying it is for Skye to address as they are now the legal owners.

 

:???::???::x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous complaint with Skye Loans / Capita rejected by FOS.

 

Skye / FOS advised that disputed amount transferred by BH, in June 2015.

 

Submitted SAR to BH.

 

Last overdue amount from BH different to opening arrears balance stated by Skye. Confirmed by details received as per SAR.

 

Raised complaint with BH who responded that all details provided in which they have.

 

Escalated complaint to FOS in which I have now received their brief and inconclusive findings. They have said that the disputed transferred arrears amount needs to be raised with Skye Loans????

 

I have until 30th March 2017 to respond and I have requested an extension due to the investigators comments.

 

I am somewhat concerned as on past experience whenever I have replied to the investigator to reconsider on evidence provided, it has been ignored and had to refer to an Ombudsman. Who then agrees with original findings and is rejected.

 

Is there anything else that I can do before having to go to the Ombudsman? Can I request that the investigator is changed or referred to a more senior level?

 

This is totally frustrating and has not been fully investigated.

 

I have evidence of last disputed arrears amount with BH before transfer (though BH cannot provide a full breakdown) and last CMI payments made with BH in which differ from increased arrears balance stated by Skye Loans.

 

Any advice please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With hindsight i am so sorry that you appear to have wasted the last 6 months on FOS.

6 months ago i would have suggested the route you have taken but having gone through FOS twice now for nail on complaints and had them find in favour of the financial houses, i wouldnt today recommend that FoS could safely handle making a cup of coffee. They are in existence because they are funded by the organisations which we complain about, hardly surprising really then is it?

Your only recourse now is to move on and make a claim through court for what you believe you are owed.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Sorry to raise old thread again but did'nt want to post a new one as I have now some further issues with 3rd charge company.

 

Going back to posts #17, 18 & #19 details.

 

Sorry to sound dumb but would the original lender (Halifax) enter the restriction on our property?

 

Or was this done by the 3rd Charge (WFS) themselves direct to the Land Registry?

 

Thanks for looking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...