Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The world's largest economy grew less than expected but rising inflation may delay a rate cut.View the full article
    • Hello, Following the submission of my defense, last night I received an email from DCBL indicating that the claimant intends to proceed with the claim (I've attached a screenshot of the email for reference) along with the N180 directions questionnaire. I'm unsure how they obtained my email, but I suspect it was through the courts' form when I completed the Acknowledgment of Service. This email almost slipped my attention. I have also today received a letter from court to state they have received my defense.  It appears they are requesting an online telephone hearing with the court. Could you please advise me on the necessary steps I should take at this point? Thank you for your assistance. Letter-Email 25-04-24.pdf N180 - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track).pdf
    • Default Amount £9237.88, all this started in 2006 Admitted debt £9075.65 Weightmans added £1515.01 immediately they became involved, no explanation The Statement shows when Marlin bought debt in May 2011 £10439.25 Their statements, not received until the SAR, are based on this. Cabot deducted £1515.01on their statements in January 2019, again did not find this out until SAR. Weightmans added in  2007 after the CH1 etc was confirmed by the court £741.50, made up of Process server fees, Court Fee (they tried for bankruptcy), Solicitors fee and Land Registry fee. Unspecfied Legal costs were added by Marlin in March 2015, again I did not know this until statements received with SAR I had been paying monthly, without exception until December 2018. I am minded to take the property charge, CH1 amount ,deduct all my payments and the subsequent fees, and request/demand a refund on the final payment made? I consistently disputed Weightmans balances, but they never responded. I also told Mortimer Clarke/Cabot that I disputed their amounts.  
    • Just follow this link and have read of some threads so your familiar with the process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5178739
    • Sorry,  I'm not familiar with terminology.  Direction questionnaire is what I've seen online as next step. Witness statement: I haven't gone that far, that's why I put the question marks.
  • 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

Secured Loan with Blemaine dating 2001-2002


Tootles64
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1628 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

Hello, 

New to this forum, so apologies if any of this has been covered.

 

I've recently put in claims for PPI (as have so many!) and in doing so had a SAR of my old bank, which revealed details of a secured loan with Blemain Finance on my old flat dating back to 2001-2002 

 

I have contacted Together Money but of course they say they no longer have the details. I have the account number, the address the charge was on etc etc

 

I wish also to reclaim all the extortionate charges they loaded up the loan with.

 

So, my questions are Do they really have nothing on me or are they fobbing me off?

Would I still be able to bring a case against them for the fees? and possibly PPI (which I'm 100% sure was on the loan)

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Tootles

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

What are the rules on reclaiming unfair charges when the loan is so old? Is there a statute of limitations? as in 6 years? I only just realised I had the loan when I got my SAR back from the bank, which was about 3 weeks ago. I had forgotten all about it....otherwise would have tried to claim ages ago!

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

when you became aware.

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

Together Financial Services Ltd have a different company registration number from Blemain Finance Ltd so I would send an SAR to a Director on here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01185052/officers and address the envelope to Blemain Finance Ltd. I do note the address is the same as Together. I'm sure historic loan agreements over six years old can be retrieved from their archives.

 

I can relate to this problem as I was told the same by a similar type of lender, I persevered as was sure this information is not wiped off their historic system after six years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update. After being SAR'd Blemain write this:

 

Thank you for your request etc.

Your data falls outside of our retention periods which have been set in accordance with law and regulation. Your data has been ring fenced for deletion and is in the process of being destroyed as of the 26th April 2019. This explanation has been sent in accordance with guidance issued by the ICO

 

If you are not satisfied you can raise a complaint etc.

 

 

I have also got another letter saying they can't find any record of me and could I supply account number, address, date of birth. All of which I had previously.

 

I'm a bit confused as to why suddenly now they've located my data they inform me they are in the process of destroying it!

 

Any ideas what my next move is? I've asked for a certificate of destruction as they said previously they had already destroyed it..

 

Seems like they are telling porkies.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as they do.

 

as you've requested it

and they obv have it

they should not be withholding it.

 

go ring the ICO and tell them what is going on.

blemain have i'm sure already been castigated numerous times regarding withholding data they possess.

which they MUST give to you if they have it

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

if they have it 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

  • 4 weeks later...

Update. They wrote again saying they were sorry that they'd sent me the  letter saying my data was ringfenced.. it was destroyed in april this year..

 

Do I believe them?

Can I get any further with this?

Have reported to the ICO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you've passed to ICO, with copies of the correspondence between you and Blemain.

 

The person I know with same problem has sent the same to ICO.  It was acknowledged by ICO but needs chasing now as not heard anymore. This person had all the original Blemain info and correspondence for the loan, account number, amount borrowed, when credited etc. People are not being protected adequately enough by the bodies put in place to do that job. The ICO, FCA and more should have more legislative power over these powerful companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...