Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bargain Cars Bristol (also trades as Southwest Vans and Commercials). They're around 55 miles away; Bristol is the nearest place to us which has a decent amount of car dealerships.   My partner has (and had previously), yes. He's the very opposite of me - doesn't research endlessly, doesn't always err on the side of caution. I'm not in a financial position to buy a car, but need one for a new job, so the deal was that he paid for it but I wasn't to interfere with my 'over-cautiousness'. Yes, he's regretting that now! (I have so far managed to refrain from saying 'I told you so'). If it was up to me, I'd spend 3 months researching the history of car, dealership, MOT testing garage etc before buying, which is why he usually ends up taking over.   Apologies, the dealer themselves didn't carry out the MOT, but they booked it in at a garage of their choice (which appears to be a couple of miles away from their business). Personally, I don't trust any MOT carried out by the dealer's garage of choice as there were no advisories on the car that had a blow-out either (I did report that garage after the blow-out, so hopefully it was assessed and action was taken).   The ad doesn't explicitly state that, but the dealer stated it verbally (which obviously I can't prove now). Their own website's ad is still visible here, but the one on eBay (which is the one we saw) has been deleted, and I foolishly don't seem to have stored a copy of it.   So, within the first 30 days I have the right to reject without having to accept a repair option, from day 31 up to 6 months I have to allow one repair attempt before having the right to reject? Is that correct? My OH wants to 'compromise' with the dealer and say that if they process a refund immediately, we'll return the vehicle today at our own cost, but if they are unable to refund today then they will have to collect the vehicle from us instead (in line with our statutory rights). However, this section of the CRA confuses me - doesn't this mean that we have to return it as stated on our receipt?    
    • I know this but a few COVID related problems have knocked us for six. So i'll see what the judge says tomorrow. Regarding the letter it seems they are dragging up stuff already covered and cleverly wording it and there are some points that are incorrect.
    • You absolutely can (have a negative lateral flow test, and a positive PCR).   This can also happen when someone is symptomatic, and actually has Covid (the scenario most people would consider first, and what I think you are asking about). There is a fallacy to that scenario, though : if symptomatic, they shouldn't be using the lateral flow test (which is for SCREENING of the ASYMPTOMATIC), but those people should be going for the higher sensitivity PCR as the initial test.   If used 'correctly', (both in terms of 'both samples taken correctly', and 'used for the asymptomatic'!) then it is possible for someone asymptomatic to test negative by lateral flow, and positive by PCR. There is again an inherent issue to this scenario, though : the testing (for someone asymptomatic, for most situations!) should stop when they have the negative lateral flow test, and they wouldn't need the PCR - so why would they then know the PCR result?   An exception here would be e.g. someone traveling internationally, who might get a (self taken) lateral flow test (which comes back negative, with a result within 30 mins), and then a PCR taken at the same time, which takes longer to come back, but then comes back positive ........ presumed then to be the PCR being the more sensitive test, and the 'true picture' (rather than the PCR being a 'false positive'!). In the academic scenario (or if you were a leading politician, or a titan of business willing to pay for a clearer answer ..... or an answer you prefer if it meant you could travel / not self-isolate!): one could then re-test by a different PCR that uses a different target ... which then gives the suggestion of which is the 'false' test (false negative 'insensitive' lateral flow vs. false +ve PCR!).   Where does one stop, though?. All tests have false negative rates and false positive rates, so I can create the possible (but unlikely!) scenario where there is a true negative lateral flow, with one or MORE false positive PCR's. One would tend to 'believe' the PCR's (especially if more than one!), but it would be POSSIBLE (if unlikely!) that the PCR's could all be false positive. As you get more and more positive PCR's using different targets, the likelihood diminishes, though (although this wouldn't affect other sources of error such as sample crossover [what if they tested a sample which was someone else's sample, and was in fact +ve, but it had been labelled as the first person's sample??). Again, where do you stop? cell culture? (the 'gold standard' by which the PCR and lateral flow test sensitivity and specificity should be measured, but not widely available).   None of these are new issue, or specific to COVID, though. The National Blood Transfusion Service has dealt with screening tests (albeit it, not for COVID, but for other infectious diseases) for many years. Blood samples from donations may test HIV +ve (on screening!), and then there is a whole protocol (different tests on the original sample, repeat testing by the original test methodology whilst going back to the primary sample tube, and getting a completly new sample [to ensure different people's samples haven't been inadvertently 'switched'!] if there are still concerns!) to ensure that : a) the donor isn't told "you have HIV", when they HAVEN'T but at the same time b) If the donor does have undiagnosed HIV infection, they get followed up, retested, (and then told!).   All this relies on an understanding of test specificity and sensitivity (and of what can go wrong at any point in the testing : pre-analytical, analytical, or post-analytical !), while appreciating that most people just want a test result and would consider  the report as 'gospel' : "positive means you have it, negative means you don't".........
    • Thanks Dave - the updated page looks great! 🌟   Going to submit the defence next week.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Want to Extend Mortgage with existing Lender - They say i must pay Restriction K's and Contact DCA's - are they right?


Recommended Posts

Hi

I wanted to extend my mortgage as it ends next November.

 

I approached my existing lender Santander bank and I explained to them that I have 3 restrictions on the Land Registry.

Two of them are on my names and third one is on my wife names.

 

The first mortgage advisor said that these restrictions are not going to affect my application as I am not taking in any equity. When I was transferred two the second mortgage advisor who said it might affect your application and the DCs needed to be informed and they need to sign a certificate to agree to my application for extending my mortgages. He suggested to approach the DC and negotiates with them before applying for an extension in my mortgage.

 

My worry is the restriction #4 by Shoosmiths the amount was about £8000, my wife was paying them £50 a month for the last 12 years and recently few months ago I cancelled the standing order because they never send any statement showing how much my wife paid so far during all this period of time,

 

only few letters advising my  wife to fill the expenditure form to revise her payment  and to carry on paying the £50.

 

My question how to approach these DCs?

 

Do I need To pay them or negotiate with them.

 

Any assistance would very appreciated.

 

 

Land Title CAG#PDF.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you paying any restriction k's they are totally useless to DCA's.

no you don't need to contact them at all.

 

if you re mortgage with the same lender they don't need paying

 

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to Want to Extend Mortgage with existing Lender - They say i must pay Restriction K's and Contact DCA's - are they right?

£7200 paid to shoo's i bet not a penny went to the original creditor...MS and that the debt has been sold on years ago to a DCA as well.

had blind.

 

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

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...