Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've had a text and email from MCB: "Dear XXXXX Please contact us today. Your payment has not been brought up to date and we would like to discuss your account with you as a matter of urgency. Our telephone number is 02039236888"   " Early investigations confirm you are resident at the above address. Despite this, we have not managed to speak to you about your now, seriously overdue debt.   We are now instructing our external debt collectors to contact you directly in relation to your loan account. If you want to avoid this course of action, contact us today on 0203 923 6888"
    • What type of finance is it?   HP, PCP, Loan? They want her to ring so they can bully her into making payments she can't afford...unless she can record her calls then IMHO, I'd keep everything in writing. Is £400 SSP her only income? There's no chance they will justify taking half of that.   Lodge a formal complaint with them ASAP, exhaust it, and then you can escalate it sooner rather than later, ruddy sharks!  
    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
  • 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

PRAC/BW claimform - old PaydayUK PDL Debt - ***Claim Dismissed***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2277 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

So it means that new rules were in play

 

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-confirms-price-cap-rules-payday-lenders

 

Initial cost cap of 0.8% per day - Lowers the cost for most borrowers - Which means they can only charge once per day 1 lot of interest, By duplicating payments on days from that statement they would be in breach of this.

This would make the agreement unenforceable in certain capacities. Dopey Gits!

 

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

So far I can eliminate their default letter, account statement, theres no proof they posted assignment letters and there may even be proof they have faked up that statement, (I need to check figures when I get home).

 

Hearing tomorrow so I'll post an update then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can try.... Its judge dependent.

 

They can submit anything they want - They could submit a Letter saying that the CEO was incompetent at his job - Whether it is relevant or acceptable is for a judge to decide....

 

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

Judge dismissed the claim on two main points.

 

No proof of either notice of assaignment or default being posted.

 

Also template default was in another business name.

 

He did say he'd have ruled against me if my arguement was soley that the default was a template as their advocate quoted a case (something vs kate someone sorry didnt note the exact case quoted) where a template was shown to contain the relevent terms.

 

Right at the start he almost dismissed due to them sending the docs late, perhaps he would have if I hadn't poked holes in the other evidence.

 

He didn't rule on the IL complaint as the FOS will do so eventually.

 

Alot of quoting Consumer credit act was done by all.

 

I would say to anyone reading this with a similar case make sure you see the default as mine had the name and address of the money shop instead of PDUK and the judge ruled if I had have received it with the incorrect logo and name I would have binned it.

 

Not sure if it was a mistake but I discussed it with the advocate before going in and he'd had time to pull up a few arguments agasinst me.

 

Really enjoyed the arguing and general court banter especially when their advocate tried to argue the templated default was an example of what would have been sent and I countered with a quote from their own witness statement where it was stated to be an exact copy of what was sent. Poor lad was stuttering after that trying to come up with a counter arguement.

 

Shook hands afterwards and apologised to the lad for beating him on technicalities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well played... Honestly never speak to the Rep before you go in (They are there to win)

Ill be noting all this down for when i have to deal with them :p

 

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

Excellent result

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 OTHERS

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

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...