Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • One of the CCA's is now with PRA Group, as far as I can make out it started with CSL, then went to Aktiv Kapital, then I got a letter from CSL and now it seems that it's back with PRA. In addition PRA Group ltd recently transferred the account to PRA Group UK Portfolios ltd. This is the company that sent back the £1.00 PO saying that they don't charge a fee for supplying acct details. Also I read online that it's not a good idea to sign the CCA request as this gives them a copy of my signature.
    • CC ballifs is a super easy procedure but beware once the warrant is issued it can take MONTHS for baliffs to viist
    • the councils notice to owner wasnt even addressed to YOU at your home address as the named driver.  the NHS should have responded to it naming you to the council as the leaser THEN the council should have sent YOU new PCN to your address this resets everything back to £25 if paid within 14 days, else £50...NOT £159. i will guess they didn't? so you neither saw nor got the YELLOW PCN sticker envelope from the windscreen of you car at the time of the offence, nor were sent one later in the post, this PCN is probably appealable -  use the forms i pointed too above (ONLY do this if you def never saw/got a PCN dont appeal if you did) lie )  now as for the bailiff ...you said earlier: what cause you to ring the bailiff? you must have gotten the Notice Of enforcement through your letterbox NOT a txt or phonecall.  lastly... the NHS where you are should NOT BE DOCKING YOUR WAGES FOR UNPAID COUNCIL PCN's (if thats what this code 236 is in your lastest PDF?) if you've a union there id go have a chat with their legal rep. anyway look im not being funny but you seem all over the place so we cant really rely upon just today's story .... with CCJ's toll fees  PCN's wages being docked  and poss debts too? you must be all over the place...hence the pirate ship comment. if you want help with all of it. get your head together on each problem start a thread on each (even debts) and WE WILL HELP. just before i go. it makes me laugh a finance company arnold clarke paid a toll fee £2.20+£32 admin fee + £20 their FEE... have you always had the same car since last summer? thats totally bonkers for them to even be involved in.    
  • 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

MMF/Moriarty Law - old WDA PDL


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2303 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

I had a letter from Moriarty saying they were acting on behalf of MMF who had *bought* a debt from WDA in 2012.

 

I told them I had made a complaint to FOS re WDA and was waiting an outcome, which I had.

 

Yesterday,

I got home to 2 letters one from WDA who said that since some of the payday loans were from 2008-2011 they could not look at the interest and charges on them but did offer a payment of in total £382 as final settlement,

 

which brings me to the 2nd letter from Moriarty who now say they have been in discussion with MMF and they are willing to take a payment of .. yep, £382 to settle the debt from 09/12.

 

They have never registered this debt on any credit files and I know they cant know as its out of the timescale.

Do you have any suggestions,

 

if I take the settlement from WDA will I have to pay it straight to Moriarty,

surely this proves they are all in cahoots as if we didn't know already.

 

Does anyone have any advice for me please.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this the same debt that's been refunded?

 

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

Some of it is.

The original letter from Moriarty that said they were working on behalf of MMF, and said total owing was £988 from a WDA payday loan taken out in Sept 12, which was originally £565 !!.

 

When WDA sent me a reply and also its final response over irresponsible lending,

in the letter it said,

in all I had taken out 12 loans with them,

over 3 year period,

 

as loans 1/87 were over 6 years they would not look at them,

but for loans 8/10 they have refunded £182 and £55,

 

then stated that as loan 12 (the one *bought* by MMF) was being upheld,

whatever that means,

they waived all the interest and charges so that only the principle balance of £565 was now payable.

They then stated that they will use this to redress amount to reduce the balance further ??

 

They state that now the total amount payable to me would be £382 and that I need to either accept this or go to FOS.

 

Then on the same day I got the letter from Moriarty law working n behalf of MMF,

stating that after careful consideration of all the information available to them,

they have now reduced the balance from £988 to £382 that must be paid within 30 days.

 

At no point do they mention WDA at all, but it is obviously the same loan.

 

So my question is, is this even legal ?

do I take it to the FOS or do I get the money owed to me back and then get continually chased for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they've written the loans off under IL then.

 

nothing owed to anyone as its all been refunded.

MMF can go swivel.

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

yes and no.

 

 

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

did you have multiple loan running already

and a crap credit file at the time?

 

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

well you could reject the payment or take it a partial settlement then off to the FOS

IMHO it should be totally written off.

and MMF needs to be told so too.

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

Had an email from John Lloyd at WDA, to ask how I knew about FOS looking at 6 year and above claims and why I had not brought it to their attention sooner.

 

Told them that online,

FOS has advised that if the loans are continuous loans, as in carried on numerous times across the 6 year period and over, with the same company, they will look into it.

 

Also told them, only knew when I looked into it after the letter from Moriarty Law.

 

Have told them I want loans 1/7 looking at again and the last loan written off.

 

If not I will take the offer they made as a partial payment and will go the FOS with the complaint.

 

As they have already acknowledged they were in the wrong with the first settlement figure offered

and the letter with it, will just have to see what they say I guess.

 

dx100uk what does the 1L mean that you mentioned above ? Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

irresponsible lending.

good move!

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...