Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Irresponsible Lending PDE/Money Shop


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1742 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 recently emailed Lending Stream to reclaim payday loan interest on unaffordable loans.

I received my reply with 28 minutes to go of the 8 week deadline as follows :

 

This is in reference to your correspondence dated 30th August 2018 about a complaint questioning the affordability of certain loans taken out with Lending Stream. We have reviewed your accounts and would like to share our findings.

 

Before doing so, we would like to highlight that Lending Stream conducts rigorous affordability assessments for all its customers on each and every loan application. Furthermore, we would like to clarify that Lending Stream does not offer payday loans where the full amount is due within a thirty-day period, nor do we allow for rollovers. The Lending Stream product is a monthly installment loan, with a typical tenure of 6 months, designed specifically to lower the monthly repayments and allow the customer to repay the loan over a longer period of time.

 

Our Findings

 

Between 16th April 2017 and 9th May 2018, you borrowed sixteen loans from Lending Stream with Loan IDs ...). Thirteen loans were successfully closed

 

.Below, we highlight the affordability checks conducted on each loan which was offered to you.

 

Loan ... was approved for 80 GBP on 16th April 2017 based on the following affordability information and checks:

· Your stated monthly income was 1650 GBP and you confirmed that you were in full-time employment. We also independently verified this income with third party sources

· Your stated monthly expenditure was 1125 GBP, leaving you a monthly disposable income of 525 GBP. Furthermore, we asked you to subdivide those expenses into specific categories, where you provided the following breakdown:

o 325 GBP for Mortgage / Rent

o 25 GBP for Utilities

o 325 GBP for Food

o 75 GBP for Transport

o 375 GBP for Other Payments

· Using national averages for expense categories where data is available as a third party verification of your submission, we revised upwards your total stated expenses and this still resulted in a viable disposable income

· The loan amount approved was 80 GBP which resulted in an average monthly payment to Lending Stream of 26.67 GBP, well within the overall disposable income

· A credit worthiness check was completed and the third party credit reference agency confirmed a rating which was satisfactory for the loan obligation.

 

For loans ….. an affordable payment arrangement is already set up for 99.99 GBP on 27th of every month.Based on the above information we conclude that proper and proportionate affordability checks were conducted on Loan …....

 

And the email goes on in this manner for each of the sixteen Loans.....very lengthy read

 

 

If you have any additional information that would be helpful in investigating this complaint, please send that to us. Otherwise, please consider this as our final response on the matter.

 

You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge – but you must do so within six months of the date of this email

 

My question is, is my next stop the FOS ?

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited by dx100uk
edited
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

please don't post details that can ID you

several ac..no's removed from above post

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

not sure where our IRL reclaim guide states to give them bank statements??

how did they get such detailed info about your spending?

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

When you apply, you have to fill out your outgoings online. Tbh, because I needed the money I always put what I thought would make it look more attractive.

 

Also received this today as I asked for original email as I couldn't locate it...

 

This is in response to your recent correspondence.

 

We acknowledge that you want a copy of your original complaint.

 

We understand that you want Financial Ombudsman Services to intervene in this matter. However, we would like to mention that we never intend to miss or follow misleading practices towards our customers whenever they require our assistance.

 

We would like to highlight that Lending Stream conducts rigorous affordability assessments for all its customers on each and every loan application. Also we would like to conclude that proper and proportionate affordability checks were conducted at the time each loan was approved.

 

Please be noted that we have attached a copy of your original complaint and income and expenditure details to us with this email as per your request.

 

We consider this as a closure towards the matter and hope the above information helps .

Link to post
Share on other sites

We understand that you want Financial Ombudsmanicon Services to intervene in this matter. However, we would like to mention that we never intend to miss or follow misleading practices towards our customers whenever they require our assistance.

 

That sounds like they could be running scared. "please dont go to the FOS about us"

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH it matters NOT that you told a white lie ...they should have checked too!

if they had they would or should NOT have loaned you the monies..

 

off to the FOS, don't think we've seen one case lost whereby some had 16! loans!!

 

that's says it all.

 

might pay you to get relevant credit file information from the time

as if that was shot too with defaults etc etc

that will further add weight to a case I can see you will win hands down here.

 

dx

 

PS don't forget to read our PDL reclaiming guide in the stickies here.

 

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

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all,

I sent a claim to the FOS and a couple of weeks ago

I received a letter to say they required more information such as bank statements and credit reports etc by 28 November which I emailed over.

Does anyone know current timescales on what happens next ?

 

Also in addition to the above,

I contacted Lending Stream back In July to ask if I could pay my debts off in smaller payments of £100 per month which they agreed to.

 

Should I still be making these payments?

 

Thanks

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

p'haps not as much.

depends on what you REALLY owe.

 

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

Update...I've had an email back from FOS today to say

Thank you for your providing your correspondence.

 

 

 

We will be in touch with you once your case has been allocated to an adjudicator for an assessment.

 

I'm assuming this may take some time to get assessed ?

 

Thanks

 

Katie

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Update email today, can someone let me know if you think I need to respond....

 

My understanding is that this complaint is about the mis-sale of Short Term Lending . Please tell me if I’ve missed something, or if you have anything to add at this point.   My role as an adjudicator is to give an independent opinion on the complaint. This means I’ll talk to you and the business, weigh up the facts of what’s happened, and then suggest a fair way to resolve the situation.   In most cases, we find a solution at this stage. This might be agreeing how the business should put things right – or sometimes that the business has already acted in a reasonable way. But if either you or the business disagree with what I say, we can review the complaint and tell you our final decision.

 

Thanks .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Received an email from FOS today basically stating to Lending Stream that 12 out of the 16 loans should not have been lent to me and that they are required to respond by 12 June with either an offer or to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

great news!!

 

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 done!! It shows you how out of touch these PDL complaints are handled by the actual lenders... 

How much of a payout are you looking at? 

 

Please consider making a donation at a later time if you already havent :)

 

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

  • 1 month later...

Did lending stream agree and get back to you by the 12th of June ? I’ve got a case with the fos and was told they had until 16th June to agree or disagree with the adjudicator decision that 14 out of 17 loans shouldn’t have been issued to me .

Link to post
Share on other sites

click create in the top red banner

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, FOS agreed that 12 out of the 16 loans were due to irresponsibly lending and Lending Stream agreed the redress of above.  LS have emailed today to confirm refund will be received within 28 days and credit file updates within 28 days 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...