Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • best to be sure it is a N279. not that they pull any underhand stunts of course   but we have seen it. your bal is now £0 but we'll still attend court as you'll probably not as we've said we've closed the account and we'll get a judgement by default. dx  
    • Sorry, last bit They had ticked that they wanted the application dealt with without a hearing, so is there any relevance that a date and time to attend said hearing has been sent out ?
    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
  • 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

FirstPlus to Elderbridge


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2022 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 took out a secured loan (2nd Mortgage) with FP in 2005 for £55,000 they added PPI £13,469.50.

The grand total = £68,469.50 WOW.

This was a 20 year term to consolidate debts following an extension and a rogue builder.

Looking back I can't believe that I did this but hindsight = 20/20 vision and all that.

 

The house and mortgage is in my name but FirstPlus adviser told me that I stood better chance of getting the loan if my partner was on the loan.

 

I reclaimed the PPI through the FOS in around 2008 and FOS ordered them to restructure the loan and put it back into a position that I would have been without the PPI.

 

In the early days there have been a couple of late payments and a payment holiday which I know would have attracted charges and interest.

 

I went back to FOS and complained that I believed that my partners name should not be on the loan as she was unemployed at the time and has no way of picking up the payments should something happen to me but I was unsuccessful:

a) because I'd left it too long to complain and

b) FP needed to protect their debt and have someone else to go after.

 

I asked for settlement figure recently and have been told that there is 5 years left and £35,000 more to pay???

I think I remember that the total amount paid back was going to be around £80K but again could be wrong.

 

Math's isn't my strong point but I would have paid them at least £120,000 which is a lot more than the principle sum and what I think I was told when taking out the loan.

 

I remember also being told it would be a fixed interest rate.

I can't find the original contract and terms so could be wrong on all counts.

The tapes would be an interesting listen should they provide them.

 

I have done a SAR and I'm waiting for it's arrival but I think that there is something fishy going on.

I also believe that it may have been miss sold due to their 'lies' at the beginning regarding my partner and the PPI.

 

I have searched this and other forums and there are threads that start but there is no conclusion so quite lost as to what I should be looking out for when I receive the paperwork(disc) and any advice would be really useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all.

40 days have elapsed and Elderbridge have not responded to my SAR. I paid the fee over the phone and then posted the form which was signed for by them.

 

From reading other post regarding SAR breaches it has been advised to send them a letter giving them a week to comply and then complaining to the ICO, is that correct?

 

Can I check also if the 40 days (pre GDPR) is from when the receive the request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We were with the Firstplus con, but luckily paid it off several months ago. They are supposed to send you an annual statement something which we found lacking. Interest goes up but never comes down contrary to what we were told when agreeing to the loan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I'm finding these issues out for myself.

They're in breach of my SAR request so just wondering if ringing them to request the statements would be a good idea

 

Just spoken to Elderbridge. They are getting the data team to call me back urgently. I won’t hold my breath!!

 

I requested a statement which she is going t send out. She informed me that the loan is unregulated which is why I’ve never had a statement.

 

The statement will cover the life of the loan but I’m not sure if it’ll have percentage rates on it.

Edited by dx100uk
Merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I've received the statement but no contact or mention regarding the SAR.

 

The account type: Fixed-sum credit agreement

Taken out 16th Sept 2005

Duration: 240 months

Total amount: £68,469.50

Balance: £33,045.45

 

Does not say what the total I have to pay back is????

 

Variable % rate which started at 8.1360 to it's highest in 2008 9.8880 and now sitting at 8.8680

 

I've had a look through and I'm struggling to make sense of it in particularly where they refunded the PPI but the refund cheque was added back to the loan balance.

 

Balance £60,286.76 - Discretionary rebate £12,924.10 = £47,362.66

£47,362.66 + Refund cheque £4,681.86 = £52,,044.52

 

The FOS instructed them to put me in a position that I would have been if I hadn't had the PPI in the first place but they seem to have penalised me. I might be reading it wrong though.

 

I can't see any charges accept an indemnity claim for £509 in 2016 where they again add it to the balance?

 

Does any of the above seem right to any of you that are knowledgable in these things?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better you scan up the letters

Read upload

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

It was the biggest mistake of our lives going with Firstplus.

We sold our home to pay off the balance however we still had an outstanding balance of about £5900.

FP would not let us pay a higher amount to pay it off quicker.

 

We tried paying more than the £69.95 a month, but every 6 months or so they would send us a refund cheque.

Eventually after paying nearly £10,000 back on the £5900 balance we had enough money to pay off the balance which was still £2500!

Never felt so ripped off in our lives!

Link to post
Share on other sites

letters?

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 for starters they cant add their SAR fee to the mortgage.

It is a separate issue but by doing so they are trying to earn interest where it doesnt apply.

 

Did you send the £10 fee with your SAR?

If not why not, they dotn ahve to do anything otherwise.

 

if they told you that you didnt need to ( not all entities charge the fee) then they still cant add it to your mortgage

Link to post
Share on other sites

send a new one its free 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

okay will do.

I need to make a complaint about the SAR fee that they've added to the loan which would've added interest to the whole loan.

Is there a way to work out the interest as I don't want them gain from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what happened to the debit card payment?

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

naughty

you should have sent a PO really.

 

ok leave it with them don't chargeback

strong complaint forth coming then yes.

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

totally up to you if you send a new one.

but oh yes ICO time for sure

 

p'haps that might be the idea place to complain about the £10 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...