Loans being demanded - a summary

[Fred Bloggs]

and you agreed to the first part of clause 3.1? and indeed

Anyone still trying to say it wasn't really a loan?

[eek]

Anyone still trying to say it wasn't really a loan?

I think that depends on the paperwork and the scheme used. In the case of rnanco and Andrew Sacco's schemes it does seem clear that it was a loan. In other cases they were simply better at hiding the fact.

[Fred Bloggs]

I think that depends on the paperwork and the scheme used. In the case of rnanco and Andrew Sacco's schemes it does seem clear that it was a loan. In other cases they were simply better at hiding the fact.

Begs the question, what went through someone's head when signing that? Or is it a case of not reading before signing? I can almost hear the soothing salesman's patter as nudge, wink, "nobody is ever going to ask you to repay it"....... etc.....

[eek]

Begs the question, what went through someone's head when signing that? Or is it a case of not reading before signing? I can almost hear the soothing salesman's patter as nudge, wink, "nobody is ever going to ask you to repay it"....... etc.....

It's the bit in bold, people think that the voice overrides the written word when the only thing that really matters is printed evidence.

[Fred Bloggs]

It's the bit in bold, people think that the voice overrides the written word when the only thing that really matters is printed evidence.

Indeed, we all had those calls, didn't we? I used to quite enjoy stringing the calls out as long as possible until the salesman realised I was taking the pi55 out of him. And all on paid time, of course.

[eek]

Indeed, we all had those calls, didn't we? I used to quite enjoy stringing the calls out as long as possible until the salesman realised I was taking the pi55 out of him. And all on paid time, of course.

I always named one of the earlier suicide victims and asked if the salesman would like to apologise to the wife and children.

[hudson]

and you agreed to the first part of clause 3.1? and indeed

They been messing around with agreements. A lot of these terms including 3.1 have been changed from original. I got proof of that also. Thats why I said previously that feciltas are committing FRAUD here which some peeps didnt like.

[eek]

They been messing around with agreements. A lot of these terms including 3.1 have been changed from original. I got proof of that also. Thats why I said previously that feciltas are committing FRAUD here which some peeps didnt like.

They might have, they might not have - the simple fact you are posting this may result in Felicitas going back and trying to find the original contract or arguing that that related to X rather than Y and sadly your loans came from Y. This is a public forum don't tell them the issues you have with their paperwork, leave that until you are in court and they don't have time to respond.

[rootsnall]

Anyone still trying to say it wasn't really a loan?

At what point does it become misselling and/or fraud. I would have thought it's one or the other.

[eek]

At what point does it become misselling and/or fraud. I would have thought it's one or the other.

I suspect it doesn't matter - and because of the nature of these schemes I suspect it's business terms so buyer beware rather than consumer terms where the law tries to protect consumers.