Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • PAPLOC = Pre Action Protocol Letter Of Claim. Heres a handy guide to sme of the acronyms you'll see on the forum... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/147286-posting-in-this-forum-and-a-z-of-motoring-terms/#comment-4399743  
    • Thames Water is lobbying for higher bills and lower fines to avoid bailout   Thames Water is lobbying for higher bills and lower fines to avoid bailout, report claims – business live | Business | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Britain’s largest water company is trying to avoid a potential multibillion-pound taxpayer bailout   despite giving out large dividends to shareholders and large bonuses to senior management UK water company dividends jump to £1.4bn despite criticism over sewage outflows WWW.FT.COM Payments include internal transfers between complex web of holding companies   In charts: how privatisation drained Thames Water’s coffers | Utilities | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Decades of underinvestment and bumper dividends have left the firm debt-laden and under investigation   ‘The whole thing stinks’: water firms to pay £15bn to shareholders as customers foot sewage bill | Water bills | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM With cost of cleanup to be passed on to bill payers, analysis shows they will also pay £624 more by 2030 to fund investor payouts    
    • Are you still claiming Tax Credits / Universal Credit? They will likely take a small monthly amount off , if you are
    • So much for protecting our borders - Guv all just dog whistles   Office for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to have budget slashed - Neal The Office for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration will have its budget cut by five per cent year on year, David Neal has revealed, Holly Bancroft reports. Mr Neal is giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in a one-off session on immigration after being sacked by James Cleverly. The home secretary said Mr Neal had “breached the terms of appointment and lost the confidence of the home secretary” after Mr Neal warned of “dangerous” failings by border force that he claimed were allowing “high-risk” aircraft to land in Britain without security checks. The Home Office had “categorically rejected” the claims, saying that Mr Neal “has chosen to put misleading data into the public domain”. You can read more here: Home Office sacks immigration chief after criticism of border security
    • "In an explosive revelation, Mr Staunton also alleged that the current Post Office CEO threatened to resign over a HR investigation into his own conduct. Mr Staunton said Post Office chief executive Nick Read had fallen out with the HR director “and she produced a document that was 80 pages in length” and there was just one paragraph in there about his own conduct and use of “politically incorrect comments”. Mr Staunton said Mr Read was “really quite upset” and threatened to resign a number of times. But just an hour before Mr Staunton’s testimony, Mr Read had denied - under oath - that he had ever having tried to resign."   I’m victim of smear campaign says sacked Post Office chair as he accuses CEO of lying WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Henry Staunton, sacked by business secretary Kemi Badenoch, gives evidence to Commons committee     see also from the post above "Carl Creswell, an official from the Department for Business and Trade said Tidswell had told Ben Tidswell that some board members might resign if Henry Staunton were not sacked)" Tidswell says he was right (See 11.14am.)"   So baden-ouch seems to be at the very least twisting the truth - no surprise there    
  • 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
      • 160 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

Lantern & QDR Solictors - Quick Quid / Safetynet


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 377 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

Good evening, and please accept my apologies if I have posted in the wrong area - my friend says this place is brilliant and well, it looks very informative.

 

I've a slight (maybe large) issue and suspect it cannot be rectified as I don't  quite know the ins and outs of what can or cannot be done, but if anyone fancies a challenge and can help please read on - sorry it is so long.

 

Few years ago, I was asked by Lantern to pay amounts for Quick Quid and SafetyNet ( I assume you will know these to be payday loans)  these must go back to around 2013 - 2015 is what I guessed.

 

I now have some documents back that I requested today attached.

 

The main reason for asking on here  is that only last week I found out Quick Quid have gone bust and 2 days ago so have Safetynet. I moved house in 2021 and suddenly got a letter from Lantern saying I needed to pay - I ignored the letters for a few months hopefully thinking they will go away. They didn't.

 

I then  got a letter from QDR solictors in June 2021.

I panicked and made arrangements to pay £25 month which would be split across the 2 accounts to reduce the balance. (the combined balance was at the start roughly about £1600 and is now £1200)

 

I guess, really is that surely if a business has gone bust, why should or a DCA chase for money other than I guess answering my own question  is because they bough the debt. No one at Quick Quid or the liquidation team had been in touch around any redress I could have done to offset an outstanding balance.

 

The same with safetynet. However, I have complained today to Safetynet and they are going to do the usual investigation and allow 8 weeks for them to make a decision so we shall see. 

 

Neither of these accounts show on my credit file. QDR today have said that they are acting on behalf of Lantern, Lantern are saying I need to liase with QDR. I've attached what I have obtained today.

 

As stated I assume little can be done now? I just find it a bitter hard pill to swallow that a solicitors would chase this for a company that no longer exists??? 

 

 

 

 

DOCS1.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arh PDLs... My specialist subject... 

You can refuse and raise a complaint to have the account returned back to Lantern. They own the balance. 

Ive done it to many Debt Chasing Solicitors and they actually send it back. You are not obliged to deal with them... They arent an authority figure... :)

 

Quickquid... Cant do much... They dont exist anymore

Indigo Michael / SNC... That will be complicated as they have only just gone into Administration. It means that any IRL Claims will go onto the waiting list as the company administration is pushed through. 

As the balance has been sold off already, its likely that any redress will be payable to you and it wont be allocated to your "Debt" with Lantern... 

 

  • Like 1

 

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

Thank you.

 

So, i just write to QDR and refuse the fact i don't want to deal with them and that i will only deal with lantern direct?

 

I assume quickquid i will still have to pay that off then which is what i thought would be likely outcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

before they scammed you into paying, when was the last payment made directly to the old original creditors? poss +6yrs gap.

 

thread moved to the lantern forum.

they are absolute scammers and dont trust anything they say do or produce.

 

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

@dx100uk

 

 I have just checked my online bank which only lets me go to 6 years ago.

 

Nothing is showing between 2017 and to now, so I would guess that my last payment to the original creditor would have been late 2015 - 2016

Link to post
Share on other sites

send lantern a statute barred letter separately for each one

 

you'll find it in the debt collection section of our library.

i

  • Like 2

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

  • 3 weeks later...

You ignore block, bounce,  report texts as spam to 7726, any texts, or emails  

 

And get reading like threads not vanish without helping yourself 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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...