Cecilia PDL diary

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

Piss off! Would be my reply.Tell em that you cannot pay more than you have offered.

Don't worry matey - they are digging a really deep hole for themselves. What we're doing is showing Cecilia to be the one working really hard to be reasonable and offer a repayment plan that is the maximum and sustainable amount that is affordable, and Mr Lender are tying themselves in knots breaching multiple OFT guidelines while continuing to add interest and charges. So no 'dirty debt dodger' and instead 'evil payday loan company - just like the ones you've read about in the paper and seen in the news'.

In the very unlikely even this ever got to court this would be fantastic leverage to use against them to get a result.

Also this is fantastic stuff to chuck the way of the OFT - hopefully we can get an investigation started in their offices

SnV

[cecilia]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

Its bovine excrement. A DMP can be run by a charity, or you can run it yourself. To state that they will not consider an offer unless you are running your DMP with a registered debt management company is a breach of OFT guidelines. They are digging a massive hole for themselves by refusing to accept your offer unless its done through a debt management company.

Falls under the following section of OFT664(rev) -

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

3.9 Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows:

c. Refusing to engage, appropriately or at all, with a third party representative, such as a debt advisor at a free advice centre of a debt management business, or with a debtor developing his own repayment plan (for example using CASHflow) unless there is an objectively justifiable reason for doing so

The OFT make the meaning of 'objectively justifiable reason' clear with the following:

"Operating a POLICY of refusing to negotiate with certain third party representatives or with a debtor developing his own repayment plan would not, in the OFT's view, constitute an 'objectively justifiable basis' in this context."

The OFT also state the following:

"We would have particular concerns under circumstances in which a debt recover business rejects a debtors repayment offer as being unacceptable - but cannot subsequently demonstrate to our satisfaction why the offer was considered to be unreasonable (for example, if assessed against the Common Financial Statement of equivalent)"

So Mr Lender, by making it clear they operate a policy of not refusing to negotiate with a debtor, cannot claim they have objectively justifiable reason.

They also have not demonstrated why your offer was unreasonable, but continue to demand more than you can sustainably afford (another breach of OFT664).

I'll put something together for you on Monday to send to Mr Lender and the complaint to go to the OFT.

SnV

LOL@bovine excrement. It makes such a difference when consumers know what their rights are. You know when you are down my way, I am taking you out for a meal, and drink and will donate to Aad on payday.

[Enforcer]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

LOL@bovine excrement. It makes such a difference when consumers know what their rights are. You know when you are down my way, I am taking you out for a meal, and drink and will donate to Aad on payday.

So will I, when I get my money back from Barclaycard. They used their "legal" right of set off, when they have now admitted that they did not even have proof of an agreement.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

So will I, when I get my money back from Barclaycard. They used their "legal" right of set off, when they have now admitted that they did not even have proof of an agreement.

OFT is clear on this too. It is considered an unfair business practice if:

"Exercising a right of 'set off' without undertaking an associated affordability assessment or under circumstances in which such an assessment has been undertaken and it is clearly apparent that the borrower is already experiencing an unsustainable level of indebtedness or would be if a right of set off is exercised"

The OFT expand on this:

"The 'Right of Set Off' is the process whereby banks exercise their common law right to apply a customer's credit balance in one account against unpaid or overdue amounts on other accounts in that customer's name. For example, this could be where a bank takes funds from a customer's current account to cover a missed credit card payment.

The Lending Code (monitored and enforced by the Lending Standards Board) sets minimum standards of good practice that banks, building societies and credit card providers should follow when dealing with retail customers. The OFT agrees with the position as stated in the guidance issued by the Lending Standards Board that before applying set-off, businesses should take account of information that they have available to them to identify whether the borrower may be in- or may be heading towards- financial difficulties.

In all cases where set-off is to be applied and it has been established, by the creditor, that the borrower is in financial difficulties, the customer should be left with sufficient money to meet their reasonable day-to-day living expenses and priority debts, where these have been identified. Particular care should be taken where it can be identified that a borrower's balance is made up wholly or in part of state benefits."

So if Barclays exercised their right to offset (whether they were in their right or not regards the executed agreement) they should have at least done the following:

1) Undertaken an affordability assessment and demonstrated that you would NOT have experienced an unsustainable level of indebtedness through its actions or why it would have been reasonable to believe that you were not experiencing an unsustainable level of indebtedness at the time.

2) Left you with sufficient money to meet your reasonable day to day living expenses and priority debts (so after they did that, could you pay the mortgage/pay bills/buy food etc)

3) If your income is made up of state benefits is this easily identifiable? If so did Barclays exercise particular care when carrying out its 'right'?

So if you can demonstrate that Barclays did not do any of the above or if that Barclays would (or should through information available to them) have known you were in, or heading toward financial difficulty then exercising any right to offset, then they are in breach of their own Lending Code.

You may have a good case with the FOS (though most of the time are useless).

[Enforcer]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

OFT is clear on this too. It is considered an unfair business practice if:

"Exercising a right of 'set off' without undertaking an associated affordability assessment or under circumstances in which such an assessment has been undertaken and it is clearly apparent that the borrower is already experiencing an unsustainable level of indebtedness or would be if a right of set off is exercised"

The OFT expand on this:

"The 'Right of Set Off' is the process whereby banks exercise their common law right to apply a customer's credit balance in one account against unpaid or overdue amounts on other accounts in that customer's name. For example, this could be where a bank takes funds from a customer's current account to cover a missed credit card payment.

The Lending Code (monitored and enforced by the Lending Standards Board) sets minimum standards of good practice that banks, building societies and credit card providers should follow when dealing with retail customers. The OFT agrees with the position as stated in the guidance issued by the Lending Standards Board that before applying set-off, businesses should take account of information that they have available to them to identify whether the borrower may be in- or may be heading towards- financial difficulties.

In all cases where set-off is to be applied and it has been established, by the creditor, that the borrower is in financial difficulties, the customer should be left with sufficient money to meet their reasonable day-to-day living expenses and priority debts, where these have been identified. Particular care should be taken where it can be identified that a borrower's balance is made up wholly or in part of state benefits."

So if Barclays exercised their right to offset (whether they were in their right or not regards the executed agreement) they should have at least done the following:

1) Undertaken an affordability assessment and demonstrated that you would NOT have experienced an unsustainable level of indebtedness through its actions or why it would have been reasonable to believe that you were not experiencing an unsustainable level of indebtedness at the time.

2) Left you with sufficient money to meet your reasonable day to day living expenses and priority debts (so after they did that, could you pay the mortgage/pay bills/buy food etc)

3) If your income is made up of state benefits is this easily identifiable? If so did Barclays exercise particular care when carrying out its 'right'?

So if you can demonstrate that Barclays did not do any of the above or if that Barclays would (or should through information available to them) have known you were in, or heading toward financial difficulty then exercising any right to offset, then they are in breach of their own Lending Code.

You may have a good case with the FOS (though most of the time are useless).

Thanks for the reply SnV. However, a bank does not, and never has had, a common law right of set off on any loan, credit card, or mortgage, FACT! They must use set off by agreement in this type of case.I have a ruling from the FOS on this, they agree with me. Barclays are issuing new terms & conditions in October to emphasise this.
Barclaycard absolutely refused to comply with my CCA requests whilst this was going on, even put it in writing. Eventually, thanks to help from Niddy, managed to get FOS on my side, It turns out that Barclaycard have not got the said agreement. FOS.

You can only imagine the fall out from this once OFT get involved, and it gets out to the press! Barclaycard have been using their "legal" right of set off, when they did not have a "legal" right.

This is going to cost them millions to sort out!

Niddy is aware of this situation, I have sent him a copy of a letter that I have written, he just wants to add additional information to it. Matter will be confirmed within a short while.

[Enforcer]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

See post, Barclaycard & Right of set off.
Or better still, Google, Gemma Anderton Barclaycard.

[cecilia]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

I have received two letters from Mr Lender.They are both slightly different!

One in the post dated 23rd September, which I received today,

Your outstanding balance with Mr Lender is currently £710.

We understand that you are having financial difficulties , so why not work with us directly and set up a repayment plan that you can afford to pay back. We can freeze interest, discount any late fees and allow you to pay over a number of months to suit you.

You can call a repayment specialist on 02085325045.

Or you can email a repayment specialist using repayments@mrlender.co.uk

Our offices are open Monday to Friday 8am-7pm and Saturday 9am-3pm.

We would much rather work directly with all our customers that may be in financial difficulty so give us a call or drop us an email and let us help you get back on track.

Yours sincerely

Repayments Department

Thinging about Instructing a Debt Management Agency

If you are thinking about using a 'fee based' Debt Management Agency, you should speak to our preferred agency-Debt Reverse. If you instruct them, they will GUARANTEE to beat any fees you have been quoted. Additionally, Mr Lender will wipe away your debt to £). Contact them on 08001513328(or 02084986781 from a mobile) and Quote:M2-DMA-
Alternatively, you can email them directly using dmp@mrlender.co.uk

[cecilia]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

Received this from Mr Lender today via email

We are assuming that you are experiencing tough times financially at the moment.

Before we pass your file to a Debt Collection Agency or take any further action, we would like to offer you one final opportunity to set up a repayment plan with us directly and via email - you don't have to speak to us as we understand it can be difficult whilst at work.
Your current balance is £710.00 and we can offer you a repayment plan over 3 or 6 months. If it is a repayment plan over 3 months, we can waiver all the late fees that you have incurred to date.
To set up a repayment plan, you will have to pay 10% of your balance of £710.00 within the next 7 days.
If this is something you would be interested in, please reply to this email and we will immediately Freeze your interest or you can call us on 0208-532-5022.
Unfortunately your credit history has already been marked in a negative manner as we previously advised you it would, however, when this repayment plan has been completed - we will update your credit history in a Positive manner, thus making it easier to obtain credit in the future with other companies.
Best regards,
David
Customer Services Department
Telephone - 0208-532-5045

[Enforcer]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

I would not even bother to reply. See what they do next!

[Tinkers78]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

Yea I agree! Don't reply, you've stated what u can afford. They're having a laugh!

[cecilia]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

Received Notice of default sums from Pounds to Pocket yesterday


this notice is being sent to you as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because default sums have been assessed against this loan.
This notice does not take account of default sums which we have already told you about in another default sum notice, whether or not those sums remain unpaid.




Customer ID#:
Loan ID#:

One or more instalment payments under the above loan from Pounds to Pocket is overdue. As a result of your returned debit on the due date, we have assessed the following default sums against the loan:

Date Incurred: 26/09/2013
Details: Late Fee
Amount: £12.00

These default sums have been assessed because the instalment payment below was not met on the due date:


LOAN ID#:
FUNDING DATE: 06/07/2013
LOAN AMOUNT: £1146.66
INSTALMENT PAYMENT DUE DATE: 25/09/2013

No further fees or interest are accruing on these default sums.

At Pounds to Pocket, we value your business and ask you to contact us immediately at 0800 016 3111 to resolve this matter.

If you are in financial difficulty, you should contact us immediately at 0800 016 3111. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, we will continue to use our continuous payment authority to debit your debit card or bank account for the overdue amount, including late fees, for a period of not more than 35 calendar days from a due date. We will not use our continuous payment authority in such a manner if you repay the amount due, have canceled the CPA and made alternative repayment means, agreed to an alternative repayment date, or are confirmed to be in financial difficulty.


* If you have already made payment arrangements for the overdue instalment(s) and default sums thereon or the entire balance of the loan, please disregard this email.


Pounds to Pocket Collections
0800 016 3111 Direct Line
0808 234 9350 Fax
collections@poundstopocket.co.uk
www.PoundstoPocket.co.uk

Pounds to Pocket
483 Green Lanes
London N13 4BS

Phishing is a form of online identity theft. Please note that Pounds to Pocket only operates on the PoundstoPocket.co.uk domain, will never ask you to click on an email link to read a personal message, and will only ask you to click on an email link to reset your password if requested.

Pounds to Pocket is the trading name of CashEuroNetUK, LLC. CashEuroNetUK LLC is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in the United States. Head Office: 200 W. Jackson Blvd., 14th Floor, Chicago, IL USA. Correspondence Address: 483 Green Lanes, London, N13 4BS. Consumer Credit Licence #: 603395.

[cecilia]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

Then got Notice of arrears today


Notice of Arrears

This notice is being sent to you as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because you are behind with the sums payable under your loan agreement.

Please review the Office of Fair Trading Arrears publication attached, which describes your rights and responsibilities.

Date: 26/09/2013

Dear

Customer ID#:
Loan ID#:
Funding Date: 06 July 2013
Loan Amount: £1146.66
Opening Balance: £1079.38

Two or more instalment payments under the above loan from Pounds to Pocket are overdue. Because of these overdue payments, your customer status has been changed to In Default.

Below is the list of overdue instalment payments:




Date: 28/08/2013
Amount: £177.23



Date: 25/09/2013
Amount: £177.23

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

They're normal are them. They have to send them each time they apply a charge. No action necessary.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

Hi Cecilia

Ok so lets get a final response to Mr Lender. Consider sending them this:

<Start Template Letter>

Account Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

FORMAL COMPLAINT and FINAL RESPONSE

Dear Michael

Thank you for your email dated 20^th September 2013, however it would appear that we are not getting any closer to resolving this matter and would appreciate your assistance in drawing this to a close.

I am disappointed that your company are continuing to refuse to accept my reasonable offer of payment under my self managed debt management plan, and also continue to breach OFT guidelines on debt collection.

You have my Income and Expenditure sheet, which has been calculated using the Common Financial Statement format and you can see the calculations that have been made to arrive at the offer made to you.

This is an industry recognized format, and my calculations were done with the assistance of a debt charity. However I wanted to manage my debt management plan personally and keep control, and responsibility, of my finances.

To refuse my offer and then state that you only ‘may’ be prepared to accept my offer unless I am in a debt management plan with an organization such as ‘Stepchange’ is both unreasonable and prejudiced, not to mention your refusal to freeze interest and charges unless I agree to pay you a monthly amount which you know to be more than I can afford and unsustainable.

OFT guidelines are very clear and consider actions as either deceptive or unfair where a creditor:

“Refuses to engage, appropriately or at all, with a third party representative, such as a debt advisor at a free advice centre of a debt management business, or with a debtor developing his own repayment plan (for example using CASHflow) unless there is an objectively justifiable reason for doing so.”

To date your company have given no objectively justifiable reason for refusing my payment proposal, but instead continue to demand payments that I have repeatedly demonstrated to you I am unable to afford.

If you are in any further doubt as to why your refusal to accept my offer in unreasonable the OFT are also clear on this matter:

"We would have particular concerns under circumstances in which a debt recover business rejects a debtors repayment offer as being unacceptable - but cannot subsequently demonstrate to our satisfaction why the offer was considered to be unreasonable (for example, if assessed against the Common Financial Statement of equivalent)"

As my offer made to you is assessed against the Common Financial Statement format I cannot see how you can subsequently demonstrate why my offer to you is unacceptable.

In addition to the above I also should remind you of Mr Lenders obligations under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with regards to the unfair relationship provisions, not to mention other requirements the Act which, to date, your company have failed to comply.

I have made substantial effort in arriving at a reasonable and sustainable payment offer in relation to the above account. However in response you have carried out a course of harassment and unreasonable demands which you know I cannot meet, and is in breach of industry guidelines.

Should your conduct in relation to the above account continue in the way it has previously to this letter I will offer you no further opportunity to change your conduct will report this to the OFT and other regulatory bodies. I am, frankly, amazed that your company continues to operate in this manner when under so much scrutiny from the OFT and I am sure that they would be interested in receiving my dossier of communication between us.

There is no benefit to either party in continuing in this manner, and I hope that your next communication will be acceptance of my offer, agree to freeze interest and charges and I can begin to commence payments, and close this matter once and for all.

I look forward to your assistance and co-operation

Regards

Cecelia

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Cecilia PDL diary

Thinging about Instructing a Debt Management Agency

If you are thinking about using a 'fee based' Debt Management Agency, you should speak to our preferred agency-Debt Reverse. If you instruct them, they will GUARANTEE to beat any fees you have been quoted. Additionally, Mr Lender will wipe away your debt to £). Contact them on 08001513328(or 02084986781 from a mobile) and Quote:M2-DMA-
Alternatively, you can email them directly using dmp@mrlender.co.uk

Putting aside the grammatical errors this is f@cking outrageous.

Mr Lender is run by Adam Freeman
Debt Reverse is also run by Adam Freeman

Both companies registered addresses are Sterling House, Suite 109W, Langston Road, Loughton, Essex, Essex, IG10 3TS

So in other words they are encouraging you to take out a fee paying DMP, to pay back a debt that is effectively going to the same individual.

Now putting aside whether this 'DMP provider' would be impartial (unlikely), you would not only be paying them back the debt, but you would also be paying them even MORE money to manage the debt management plan that would be paying them back!

This on its own deserves a complaint to the OFT. Its scum like this that are preying on vulnerable individuals.

You also have a nice little dialogue going with Stella Creasy - I'd send her this information and show her that not only are these people lending money to vulnerable people, but they are then also preying on them further when they fall further into debt, by taking money off them to manage the debt created by their products in the first place.



I'll come back later after I've calmed down - I'm steaming right now!