can you post up their full response - these guys are really a shower. ..along with minicredit, they were almost criminal-like in their behaviour. I would imagine you will get the full balance wiped and your interest back. If they have actually said they do not give you permission, it will put you in an extremely strong position

avaya, i wouldnt pay too much attention to their reply, it is just designed to try and put you off complaining. ive lodged complaints (and won) with nearly all the main payday lenders and not one has admitted any liability. the other thing that matches their terrible behaviour is their ability to try and balls it out and continue to lie about what they have done. as silverfox says, if you had multiple other lenders as well as lots of rollovers, you have a v strong case would your bank statements not show you the loan history?

joncow, bog standard response from them - I got exactly the same. the real fun starts now with FOS, I got mine resolved via the adjudicator and did not have to wait for ombudsman but your loans are on a totally different scale and such is the amount of money they may try to drag it out but in your in the last lap now so fingers crossed

hi gav, it really comes down to two things: firstly, what checks did they do and were those checks adequate for the amount lent?. so a one-off payday loan for £100 would prob not require a full credit search but if you were in a cycle if longer term borrowing for larger amounts then the lenders should check more the second element is if the lender did checks then what did they show. so if they did a credit check and it showed a lot of other payday loans and defaults for example. if they checked bank statments and they showed gambling transactions or other major outgoings then those should be queried. in my experience, if the lender did not do the checks then it usually is straightforward and gets upheld. it the second category that is more tricky and open to interpretation and lets when it seems to come down to the individual adjudicator and ombudsman.

ah ok, thought u were further on...you can bet your bottom dollar that they will leave it to the last day of the eight weeks or prob even a few days more just to frustrate you before they respond

yes, from the point of view of those companies who look at bank statements - it would be clear that anyone with a gambling problem does not have control of their finances and therefore not suitable candidates for payday loans

joncow, u ever a decision from FOS?

consistency is not the fos strongpoint - out of 10 cases with basically the same facts I had about 7 different opinions - all bar one of them all upheld but sometimes you need to stick their nose in the main facts....the recent curveball I have had thrown at me was an adjudicator not upholding complaint against safetynetcredit despite another ombudsman saying I was in a clear cycle of payday debt with another lender who was lending to me at same time and another adjudicator confirming it was clear I had a gambling problem!!

great result albob - I'm in a hard fought battle with my fos adjudicator about indigo Michael - they refused my complaint upright and adjudicator agreed saying they had done adequate checks. He did this despite me having 8 other payday loans current in my banking transactions and other borrowing as well as a horrendous gambling problem with literally hundreds of transactions each month as well as being in a lending cycle with them for almost 2 years. Just shows the vagaries of the FOS process - other complaints against payday lenders at the same time were upheld!!! AS one of the other posters here has mentioned, it seems as long as the company has ticked-boxes to show it has done adequate checks that this is enough for the FOS - they don't seem to actually have to have read the content of the checks. Have sent a strong response to FOS pointing out a lot of the contradictions so will see what happens - may just let it ride to the ombudsman decision as nothing to lose

yes, I'd be prepared to wait the full 8 weeks unfortunately and then the amount of time it takes to get through the FOS process which is prob between 3-6 months. In my case they accepted the adjudicators decision without raising it to the Ombudsman which saved a bit of time but at least you have a very nice lump sum awaiting you. the FOS can throw the odd curveball decision depending on what adjudicator you get but as you have seen with 80% of cases getting upheld and the sheer volume of your lending, I cant see how they can win your case The good news in a perverse way is that QuickQuid has been granted a full consumer credit licence and is a big company with deep pockets so should be no risk to your money - my worry with a lot of my cases with the smaller lenders was that they would go out of business and I would never see any of it back (Minicredit, CashGenie being examples). I dont see given how the scale of some of these refunds how can of the smaller lenders can survive...

thanks guys - the read-only access to my banking is what I think they will hang themselves on, as those transactions showed I had a multitude of other payday lenders so really it is wilful ignorance and no hiding place for them. footballplayer - yes, I noticed your post last week - seems to be very little about them in terms of complaints versus other payday lenders thus far but I was heartened to read your goodwill gesture, my complaint is currently with an adjudicator so should get a decision in next two weeks fkofilee - my lending stretched across both their "old" ClearAccount product and "new" SafetyNet product - continuous lending for almost two years despite having a mulitude of other lenders. I think they have been quite crafty in trying to differentiate themselves from other payday lenders despite being a payday lender in all but name! Their final response stated: SafetyNet Credit is a running account credit product with a monthly minimum repayment and no fixed repayment date. In many ways SafetyNet Credit is akin to a bolt on synthetic overdraft, saving the vast majority of customers significant sums compared to what they would be charged for equivalent borrowing on an unauthorised overdraft, but the contractual minimum monthly repayment structure is similar to that for a credit card. SafetyNet Credit was never previously treated as a payday loan by our former regulator the Office of Fair Trading and falls outside the Financial Conduct Authority’s High Cost Short Term Credit (“HCSTC”) definition. My thoughts are if they are not HCSTC then why did they have to reduce their daily interest rate on 1st April 2015 to 0.8% and why the warning messages on their website!

anyone else lodged irresponsible lending complaints against these guys? i have completed all my cases against other payday lenders and these are the final lot. interesting they are arguing they do not fall into the hcstc definition and operate like a credit card accout lol!!

joncow, the response you received is a standard qq repky which i receieved as well before finally winning. you should definitely win your case, if you check out the fos website and look at the decisions database, filter it in quickquid and u couls get some useful info to support your complaint. the main criteria which the fos seem to like to uphold are: long term consecutive sequential borrowing either via rollovers or reloans other payday lenders apparent other adverse credit based on the volume of lending alone, you should be in for a very nice refund of interest and charges but be prepared to wait a while

remember it costs the compay a case fee of over £500 for each case lodged with FOS (once they pass their free threshold of 25 which I am sure they will have done). I dont believe a small outfit like ECashwindow will fancy paying this so there may be an opportunity to do a deal with them before going to FOS

all good then - long term pattern of lending with multiple extensions and no evidence of checks almost always gets upheld by FOS so think you have a great case. with the FOS you can get the odd curveball thrown at you by certain adjudicators but cannot see how you would lose this based on what you have said. Assume your credit record was pretty poor as well? i would definetely stick to your guns with FOS - remember it costs the company over £500 for each case as well so bit of a double whammy for them. Nearly all payday lenders I had complaints with insisted they had done nothing wrong so it is all part of the negotiation

I remember no affordability checks when I took the original loan so doubt they undertook them at all - what was ur pattern of lending with them?

Katie, i wouldnt waste my time trying to negotiate over the credit file entries with payday lenders - they will use it as a bargaining chip and will agree to anything. Go direct to FOS and if ur complaint is upheld then typically they will remove all credit file entries relating to the unaffordable loans in order to put you back in the position you would have been if you had not taken the loan (including removal of default) Check the following FOS decision as an example: http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=86002

adam, did they give you a final response and an offer?

def a strong case katie but be prepared for a long wait! mr lender do not tend to play ball imho

as long as its within the past 6 years..

you may have a case yorkie but i believe that it will be more difficult than the cases against payday lenders. if you look at the ombudsman decisions database, you will see that relatively few complaints get upheld for irresponsible lending other than the payday ones there are a number of differences as well with provident/shopacheck loans (home loans) and payday loans or high cost short term credit (hcstc) as they are known now. the interest rate is one big difference and the definition of hcstc means they are more likely to be upheld

messedaround, absolutely take this all the way to the FOS - their offer is laughable given what y.ou have described

messedaround, wonga are a nightmare. initially i thought they were messing about but given the amount of complaints on the FOS website with virtally one upheld, then i believe they are probably snowed under. i am doubtful that company can survive given some of the payments they are having to make quickquid were also slow and also set up a direct debit on my account which alsmost gave me a heart attack but it seems to be the same process they go through when paying refunds as they do when making loans. from memory, i got my refund after about 3 weeks

messedaround, what was your lending experience/pattern with Wonga? If it was similar to what you said about your peachy account then I am sure it will be upheld. My adjudicator has just came back on my Peachy account and recommended half of my loans are refunded which I am happy enough about

yes agree, you would think by the responses of the PDL's that they have not done a thing wrong - you will need lots of patience and stamina as the fOS can also be a long drawn out process