Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • sorry I have been confused by Statute Barred meaning. I thought with Statute Barred the debt cannot be chased 6 years after you have stopped paying.  Originally I set up a payment arrangement with all the companies around 2008 when things went horribly wrong. At that time the payment arrangement was with the original creditors.  I still have one of the original creditors who I pay each month (Cap1). I thought that if you make a payment arrangement you have to stick to that situation throughout. Also, MDR (Moorcroft) have been taking a monthly payment on behalf of M & S Bank for about 5 years. When I sent MDR a CCA request I got a copy of the original agreement sent to me directly by M & S Bank about 5 weeks after my CCA request. Sorry for my ignorance but would you suggest I stop paying all including Cap1 who are the original creditor? TIA
    • London1971 without divulging too much into his mental health he has issues regarding anything to do with government and so is it ok to fill the forms provided and what do I put on there  thanks  
    • Dear all, I am hoping for some advice/guidance on this matter. I received a LoC dated 12/04/24 and replied to this on the 2/05/24 disputing claim with the following reasons: 1: [Inadequate Affordability Assessment]: I contend that your institution failed to conduct a thorough assessment of my financial circumstances prior to approving the loan. As a result, the loan amount and repayment terms were not suitable for my income and financial situation. 2: [Unsustainable Repayments]: The repayment schedule imposed by the loan agreement placed an undue burden on my finances, making it impossible for me to meet my other financial obligations without experiencing significant hardship. 3: [Lack of Transparency]: Your institution did not adequately disclose the risks associated with the loan, including any potential increases in interest rates or fees over the loan term. I also added the following: Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations, lenders have a legal obligation to conduct thorough affordability assessments and ensure that loan agreements are suitable for borrowers' circumstances. I hereby request that your institution: 1: Conduct a full investigation into my claim of irresponsible lending. 2: Provide me with copies of all documentation related to the loan application and approval process, including affordability assessments, credit checks, and correspondence. 3: Cease all collection activities related to the loan until this matter is resolved. Yesterday i received the attached reply via email and it included: 1: The Original Loan agreement 2: An account statement 3: A copy of a default notice letter. The email included a link for a direct debit set up page where you enter their reference and your bank account details (looks like a standard D/D set up page) but there is nothing to indicate the amount of the D/D that I might be agreeing to. I also think two days response time is not long enough to appropriately reply. Any thoughts appreciated   Email-compressed.pdf
    • Easy to set one up on Gov.uk , search on Google.
    • Hi London  he doesn’t have government gateway. Should we do it via post?
  • 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

Am I claiming the right things?


un1boy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6252 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

Ok, here goes:

 

RBS offered about £150 short of full claim amount.

 

They gave a form asking her to sign and it said it would be put in her account.

 

I told her to cross off the account bit and write that she wanted a cheque, within 7 days.

 

She faxed this off and 6 days later called them to chase it. They said it wasn't on their screens etc, and said it would be put into the account with the DCA.

 

I told her to advise RBS that this would not happen as she had requested a cheque and if they didn't accpet those terms, they shuldn't have paid her - this is because she would have issued MCOL if she wasn['t getting a cheque.

 

Anyway, they put the cash in her account and she told them to take it out. They said they couldn't and that they wouldn't.

 

So, she called the FSA who said they can pay it how they want. The FOS on the other hand siad they couldn't (there was no complaint made with the FOS, just "advice").

 

RBS kept sayig that because she had signed the form, ,she had accepted the payout, even though she had requested a cheque.

 

She called the solicitors who said, "I don't know what your problem is, you've got the money" and she said, it's my money - not urs.

 

 

It took a few calls, and they were really rude to my aunty, saying they had a right to recoever money owed to them first etc - they even put the phone down on my aunty - just because the lady said, "we have your signed acceptance form here, I'm looking at it" and my aunty said, "Yes, and if you read it, it says "as a cheque, within 7 days!" The lady then saud, "I am not talking to you anymore Mrs. un1boy's aunty" and put the phone down!!!

 

So, I wrote her a letter saying that she didn't acknowledge the payment they had made as it wasn't made by the terms of here acceptance. It also said that she wowuld begin legal proceedings for the full amount, plus costs, plus interest if she hadn't had the cheque by firday.

 

She was called 20 mins later to say they has removed the money.

 

We don't know what's happening now, but if she doesn't get the cheque by firday, we are issuing MCOL.....

 

The FOS have said that they would take on our case if we don't go to court as RBS have removed the money form her account and thus are deemed to have not paid her!!!

 

The FOS were surprised that RBS were paying people like that......

 

We are gonna take it to court out of principle now, but I would suggest anyone else in this position to contact the FOS.....

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Luck !!!!!!!

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent to NatWest 30 March 07

Statements received 2 May

SAR sent Barclays 30 March 07

SAR sent Barclaycard 30 March 2007

SAR sent RBS 5 April 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the luck MCP

 

We are now taking this to court - so, they are well and truly screwed now!! and extra 1500 pounds....

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...