Hi,

I am using a payment card to make payments on my Provident loan - due to my relationship, I do not wish for Provident to make a home visit. My agent is claiming that he is obliged to call to my house each time I miss a payment

I have told him that I now revoke my consent to any such visit - anyone clarify the legalities of this?

thanks dxc - yes id like to challenge them re the DN is faulty but appreciate that they could just rectify the amount and resubmit.

However, as part of the reduced amount I have many many charges for missed payments etc.

I am also pursuing them for irresponsible lending as they granted me an additional card (via littlewoods) at a time I had very poor credit rating and a long history with them of taking cash advances etc

yes there were regular calendar markers with missed payment and many many charges,

however i was still paying ppi from the beginning of lending right through to the point of default which was only 2 months ago

so it wasn’t like there was a big break where it defaulted then i reclaimed 

my argument is that the default amount includes very recent ppi charges that i would not have had if the ppi had not been missold

could i not argue that the amount they are claiming as default is wrong as it consists of ppi charges? 

hi,

capital one have just responded confirming they have upheld my ppi claim with a refund of £1k plus against a 2.3k balance.

The overall account is defaulted (very recently)

- given that almost half of the balance was related to PPI charges,

can they go ahead and default?

no point really going to fos - lots of us have had complaints upheld but no way of getting money back from them whatever sneaky way they restructured....only worth going to FOS is Opos/Kapama are chasing you and the debt is made up of lots of charges

joncow, you ever get your case resolved or still outstanding?

def let this go to the ombudsman - you have nothing to lose. I would also go back to the adjudicator and ask him to consider the pattern of lending where you were clearly utilising a short term product for long term borrowing....did the credit check that Sunny undertook not show up any of the other PDL's?

prob all depends on how much the decision is worth to you versus the hassle - sounds like you are in a strong position so id give it a go getting the bank statements you can easily. I woul imagine it is just to confirm the level of debt you were in and other pdl's

I wouldn't worry about getting into trouble about any of the other stuff - the omdbudsman has no legal jurisidiction over anything else and doubt would be interested

id be amazed if it made any difference but can do no harm - however I still would not let it stop you from lodging complaint with FOS. you can keep both tracks going and if QQ miraculously do offer you anything then you can withdraw the complaint from FOS. At least, you will have the clock ticking on your complaint should you lodge it now

loulou, I really wouldn't bother trying to give quickquid or any of the others more time - best to get the clock ticking with the FOS complaint as you could be waiting up to 6 months to get that completed after the 8 weeks you have already waited. QQ usual strategy is to slow things down and frustrate as much as possible by taking the full 8 weeks and then making some derisory offer...

in one case, I submitted new/additional evidence (although I suspect this just gave them an excuse to right a decision they knew was wrong). In another case, I basically just kept asking the adjudicator to keep looking at points she appeared not to have missed or not referenced in the decision she made ( I believe she just took a lazy approach). I n the third case with Wonga, I got lucky as they did not adhere to the original adjudication decision in the agreed timescale which allowed me to argue that I only took a deal with them because they said they would settle quickly, when they didn't, I got the case re-opened

....this was in three cases out of around 11 I had lodged with FOS - the rest I all won....

id personally given the adjudicator another bit of time - in my cases, I have had 3 cases where the adjudicator has changed their mind after deciding against me. There is no just way I cannot see you not winning this case though given the long term nature of the lending

yeah they don't often overrule the adjudicator but when you have nothing to lose then it is worth a shot. I'd raise the "pattern of lending" with the adjudicator - that as a short term product it was not intended for borrowing over 10 months and the credit checks they did for the original amount may have been adequate but surely they should have doen additional checks over this much longer term period as you were effectively borrowing 3000 (300 * 10) not 300...

i found that a tricky one to deal with in my cases, mainly for fear that the adjudicator would take offence that you are telling them to do their job - you feel like telling the adjudicator to wake up and smell the coffee or something worse! Personally what I did when an adjudicator was coming up with a weird decision was to ask them to re-consider general areas rather than point to specific cases. So I would point out to them if they considered the pattern of lending was affordable or the number of rollovers etc. But I understand ur frustration and when they go against you, you have nothing too lose anyway so would not worry too much about it. I still this will get resolved in your favour when/if it goes to the ombudsman as it is so blatant - around three rollovers seems to be the maximum accepted norm

multay, glad to hear that. adjudicators can throw the odd cuveball but that decision seems to go against the grain of everything i have read on the fos decisions database. i would strongly ask your adjudicator to consider the pattern of lending for a short term product which should have prompted quickquid to make further enquiries into your financial situation

multay, I am stunned that this was not upheld if you had a loans over a 5 year period - could you post up the adjudicators response removing any identifying details. The FOS does throw the odd curveball but nearly every decision I have encountered where there has been continuous lending has been upheld. this is definitely worth pursuing to the Ombudsman - as ford says, it costs nothing

its a well worn tactic the pdl's use to frustrate and drag things out - the ombudsman usually does not take much more than a month or so in my experience if the adjudicator has upheld - then sunny will have 28 days

can u post up the wording of their offer? if they offered you something then withdrew it then that would strengthen ur case with fos

I wouldn't worry about sending anything to quickquid - just prepare all the evidence that supports your case for when/if you need to escalate to ombudsman. It was quick quid whose responsibility to do the checks, not for you to supply it to them!

As I am sure you have read, quickquid will make you sweat the full 8 weeks then come back with some derisory offer

ever get the chance to scan this letter?

I have a case with them atm awaiting an ombudsman decision as well - eventually upheld by the adjudicator but a very hard fought case - they do appear to have more affordability checks than most lenders so they can claim they have done all the checks to cover themselves in the event of complaints

Did they make the offer in their Final Response? Can you post up the Final Response

from any threads or posts, i have read in detail or been involved in. citizen b always eminated kindness and decency....

wow - you could be in for a stonking payback of interest! the amount of deferrals alone in the snapshot you have provided gives you a strong case. you basically just total up all the interest and charges you have paid - ignore the capital amounts borrowed as you have to pay that. So if you borrowed £500 and deferred it three times at £100 per go, it would be £300 interest

no - absolutely no need to complete it. Its designed for them to use the information against you. I would advise replying saying you do not wish to complete the questionnaire and pleas base their final response on the facts of the case at the time they lent to you