Student loans and pensions

Delete33

Nothing to add to that jackster123, well said.:T:cool::)

DanDaniel

Hi folks and thanks for the excellent advice so far.

I have received my statement of accounts after sending of my complaint letters although I am still to hear from Wonga.

I have calculated in excess of £8000 interest paid to QQ in 3 years and £800 with MyJar. I will update you with there response after I asked for redress with 8% interest. I also provided credit reports showing terrible missed payments at that time on credit cards loans and mortgage.

Not holding my breath and expecting to take my complaint to the FOS, has anyone had a payout of that magnitude or is it better to accept what they offer ?

Also when dealing with the FOS, would I complaint about QQ, Wonga & MyJar separately or all within one complaint ?

Thanks for all your excellent advice and support, I do hope i get something back.

Delete33

Hi DanDaniel, you complete an on line form or talk to the FOS over the phone when you have your final response or the 8 weeks has been reached. You will put in seperate complaints to begin the process, I am lucky my adjudicator has taken on both my complaints against QQ and PDUK. It makes it a lot easier if the same adjudicator looks at your complaints. There have been several large payouts from QQ one over £10,000 I seem to recall reading about. Go for it Dan, get every penny back that you can of these Predators.:cool:

jackster123

A little advance warning about QQ. They will send you a massive questionaire to fill in, its a load of rubbish, and you dont need to bother. They are dreadful at dealing with these complaints, and will milk the time for all its worth and then send a derogatory offer for less than 10% of the value of your claim. Usually, if they offer £300, the FOS award £3000, so dont be put off. Its absolutely standard procedure with them.

If you get the questionnaire and need a hand answering, give me a shout. I would post me standard template but they change the questions every now and then, so best to do it at the time.

Here are a few titbits from the FCA guidelines on complaint handling, for anyone waiting, and waiting and waiting for a result with Slow Quid:

DISP 1.3 Complaints Handling

DISP 1.3.2AG01/04/2013
These procedures should, taking into account the nature, scale and complexity of the respondent's business, ensure that lessons learned as a result of determinations by the Ombudsman are effectively applied in future complaint handling, for example by:

1. (1) relaying a determination by the Ombudsman to the individuals in the respondent who handled the complaint and using it in their training and development;
2. (2) analysing any patterns in determinations by the Ombudsman concerning complaints received by the respondent and using this in training and development of the individuals dealing with complaints in the respondent; and
3. (3) analysing guidance produced by the FCA , other relevant regulators and the Financial Ombudsman Service and communicating it to the individuals dealing with complaints in the respondent.

DISP 1.3.3R01/11/2007
In respect of complaints that do not relate to MiFID business, a respondent must put in place appropriate management controls and take reasonable steps to ensure that in handling complaints it identifies and remedies any recurring or systemic problems, for example, by:

1. (1) analysing the causes of individual complaints so as to identify root causes common to types of complaint;
2. (2) considering whether such root causes may also affect other processes or products, including those not directly complained of; and
3. (3) correcting, where reasonable to do so, such root causes.

DISP 1.3.6G01/09/2011
Where a firm identifies (from its complaints or otherwise) recurring or systemic problems in its provision of, or failure to provide, a financial service, it should (in accordance with Principle 6 (Customers' interests) and to the extent that it applies) consider whether it ought to act with regard to the position of customers who may have suffered detriment from, or been potentially disadvantaged by, such problems but who have not complained and, if so, take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure that those customers are given appropriate redress or a proper opportunity to obtain it. In particular, the firm should:

1. (1) ascertain the scope and severity of the consumer detriment that might have arisen; and
2. (2) consider whether it is fair and reasonable for the firm to undertake proactively a redress or remediation exercise, which may include contacting customers who have not complained.

Apologies if thats a bit boring, but hopefully it will save anyone else having to trawl through the various FCA handbooks to find the relevant info.


I think the pd loan companies have now had more than enough complaints, and more than enough time, to realise that these arent one off complaints. They should be proactively dealing with this by now, rather than fobbing people off and leaving them dangling for months on end.

Delete33

I will say it again, will someone act and Stop these Predators from trading and send them packing back to the USA.

Joe10

Quick question regarding my pay day loans. Thankfully I no longer have any but when I did o often used them to gamble. I had loans out to repay back other loans etc and topped them up a few times

I'm short if I have to go to the ombudsman and they see my bank statements for online gambling where I had the money to pay but didn't and used the loan money to gamble also, will my complaint be thrown out?

Joe10

Sorry about some of the spelling above.....typing on my phone

jackster123

Ginger.ice wrote: »

Remind the adjudicator that all addictions (regardless of how frivolous they appear to be perceived) are widely accepted as a mental illness. And having a mental illness makes you more vulnerable to the underhand profiteering of these predators. You were a prime target who they intended to milk for all you were worth.


If your affordability declarations suggested you had significant amounts of expendable income, but you had to keep on using payday lenders on a continuous basis, then that should have been a clear indicator of either an addiction or a total lack of control. Either way a sensible lender would have identified this total contradiction and done some more investigations before lending to you.


If the lender also completed credit checks then it would have even more information to see that the affordability declarations could not be accurate. This argument has rightly convinced even the most sceptical of adjudicators that I dealt with.


In my case I was declaring £1400 of expendable income per month (which was accurate before you accounted for gambling losses). With this level of expendable income why would I ever need a PDL? Why would I have 5 recent defaults on my credit file? Why would I have over 100 PDLs on my credit file over the last 2 year? Why would I need to roll over and top-up loans?


The two aspects of the credit check should marry up, otherwise they should have done more investigations.


Take them to the cleaners Evelyn.

Joe ^^^ Ginger put it better than I ever could x

Joe10

Thank I very much

Joe10

Sorry still on my phone. I'm thanking you (and ginger) not me!!