Quickquid Successful Reclaim

TomW1988

Hi,

So called them up at 3.30 pm our time.

On phone for 10 min, and was just told she would need to escalate it with the team.

No mention of why it's being delayed by QQ but can see emails from the FOS and Ashley Howard (Claims Handler)

Very frustrating, before i hung up i told them they are quick to take my money when it suits them but when its the other way round.

I am gettng very impatient with it now.

Pete12

Hi TomW, did you get any further with you claim? I’m in exactly the same bit as you are. QuickQuid agreed with the FOS assessment and on 11/09/19 I was told it would take no more than 28 days for payment to be made. It’s now day 43 and I’ve been chasing every day in between and apart from being ‘escalated’ haven’t got much further. With the news that they’re on the verge of administration I’m desperate to receive the redress beforehand as they’ve offered me £1563. Today when I spoke with them I asked to be out through to the manager who told me the Resolutions team are unavailable now until Monday - probably with this mews in mind. I just hope they haven’t stopped paying out!!

sourcrates

Quick quid are about to go down the pan, I doubt many of you will be seeing much in the way of compensation now, those using 3rd party claims companies remember you may still be liable for their fee’s.

boo_star

It'll be nice hearing people complain about their legs being broken when the loan sharks take over...

glennstar

boo_star wrote: »

It'll be nice hearing people complain about their legs being broken when the loan sharks take over...

In the interests of impartiality, they don't just break legs, the break plenty of other things too, and not just the borrower's, either, which is, arguably, very open minded and progressive of them.

I suppose all those who are complaining about how crap the FOS is, you might be pleased to hear that loan sharks are regulated by the DoJ and not the FCA... which means no slow moving FOS, third party claims companies, spam emails, etc, etc. Maybe this is the way forward, after all?

sourcrates

glennstar wrote: »

In the interests of impartiality, they don't just break legs, the break plenty of other things too, and not just the borrower's, either, which is, arguably, very open minded and progressive of them.

I suppose all those who are complaining about how crap the FOS is, you might be pleased to hear that loan sharks are regulated by the DoJ and not the FCA... which means no slow moving FOS, third party claims companies, spam emails, etc, etc. Maybe this is the way forward, after all?

Like I said in my earlier post, the "original" concept of full repayment on your payday, and rollovers, was always going to be a problem for most people.

After regulation, the repayment periods changed to a "variable" repayment plan, usually between 3 and 6 months, or longer in some cases, that, combined with the cap on interest and charges, was not that bad a deal, if you were desperate for cash, and could not borrow elsewere.

I could see nothing to oppose with that model, as long as you could afford the repayments, it was your choice to apply, or not.

It has been historic complaints in relation to the original payday loan product, and a flood of claims made by claims mangement companies, that has led to the demise of so many high interest lenders, a lot of complaints go back to 2013/14 or earlier, 9/10 complaints are made by a CMC, some are without foundation at all, but if they have already gone to the ombudsman, still cost the company money in the case fee`s they must pay the FOS, that amounts to £550.00 per case, even if not found in your favour, when you have 40.000 new complaints a month, that`s a lot of money.

glennstar

sourcrates wrote: »

Like I said in my earlier post, the "original" concept of full repayment on your payday, and rollovers, was always going to be a problem for most people.

After regulation, the repayment periods changed to a "variable" repayment plan, usually between 3 and 6 months, or longer in some cases, that, combined with the cap on interest and charges, was not that bad a deal, if you were desperate for cash, and could not borrow elsewhere.

I could see nothing to oppose with that model, as long as you could afford the repayments, it was your choice to apply, or not.

It has been historic complaints in relation to the original payday loan product, and a flood of claims made by claims management companies, that has led to the demise of so many high interest lenders, a lot of complaints go back to 2013/14 or earlier, 9/10 complaints are made by a CMC, some are without foundation at all, but if they have already gone to the ombudsman, still cost the company money in the case fees they must pay the FOS, that amounts to £550.00 per case, even if not found in your favour, when you have 40.000 new complaints a month, thats a lot of money.

You appear to (unusually) contradict yourself. You say that the unworkable business model (which may well have worked if there was infrastructure and competent regulation in place) was undermined by spurious and authentic claims on said companies... which may or may not be right - I'm not qualified to judge, which is probably as well as given our guidance on that particular matter. I feel the point is, that if we might return to an equilibrium of right and wrong (unpopular in this day and age as it is) we might reduce the claimant population significantly by removing all the fraudulent applications - which the FXA stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as a crime - making them an accessory - surely!!

boo_star

glennstar wrote: »

You appear to (unusually) contradict yourself. You say that the unworkable business model (which may well have worked if there was infrastructure and competent regulation in place) was undermined by spurious and authentic claims on said companies... which may or may not be right - I'm not qualified to judge, which is probably as well as given our guidance on that particular matter. I feel the point is, that if we might return to an equilibrium of right and wrong (unpopular in this day and age as it is) we might reduce the claimant population significantly by removing all the fraudulent applications - which the FXA stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as a crime - making them an accessory - surely!!

The FCA can't really win in this scenario, although I do think they were somewhat negligent regardless.

Let's be honest, if it wasn't for the fact that they were being handed compo left, right, and centre, people would be claiming that their "uman" rights were being breached by not getting access to credit.

Les79

glennstar wrote: »

we might reduce the claimant population significantly by removing all the fraudulent applications - which the FXA stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as a crime - making them an accessory - surely!!

I think that would raise questions as to why the lenders were complicit in allowing the fraudulent applications to get through.

Can't imagine that fairly intelligent people within the financial services sector wouldn't have cottoned onto this whole issue at a fairly early stage! If so, why did they allow it to continue? Does that contradict any of their legal obligations with regard to tackling crime?

If they started locking up people for crimes of this nature then I wouldn't be surprised if there was outcry aimed directly at the financial sector; and I suspect that the UK government doesn't want to rock the boat *too much* when it comes to the largest sector within the UK.

But I feel you bring up an interesting question; is there a possibility that the claimant population catchment size was artificially inflated because of things like this "crime" (I like to call it "the lender being a bit complicit and allowing this crime to happen"), and as such would a reduction in the claimant population be a more natural market position for these type of lenders? Or, in other words, would a reduction in the claimant population actually be a bad thing? I mean, it has some implications about the wider society but that's for the government to sort out.

boo_star

Les79 wrote: »

I think that would raise questions as to why the lenders were complicit in allowing the fraudulent applications to get through.

Can't imagine that fairly intelligent people within the financial services sector wouldn't have cottoned onto this whole issue at a fairly early stage! If so, why did they allow it to continue? Does that contradict any of their legal obligations with regard to tackling crime?

If they started locking up people for crimes of this nature then I wouldn't be surprised if there was outcry aimed directly at the financial sector; and I suspect that the UK government doesn't want to rock the boat *too much* when it comes to the largest sector within the UK.

But I feel you bring up an interesting question; is there a possibility that the claimant population catchment size was artificially inflated because of things like this "crime" (I like to call it "the lender being a bit complicit and allowing this crime to happen"), and as such would a reduction in the claimant population be a more natural market position for these type of lenders? Or, in other words, would a reduction in the claimant population actually be a bad thing? I mean, it has some implications about the wider society but that's for the government to sort out.

Victim blaming. Not surprising really.