Upvote
0
Calling iwoca borrowers: Need evidence of misconduct
- Thread starter perfumebrands
- Start date
Please state the citation for the Beckingham case as I cannot find any report on BAILII or elsewhere.. Where did you see the report?
Upvote
0
Fake case hallucinations are becoming increasingly common with Chat GPT so much so that judges have just been told to not reference them in their judgements (even though only to say they are fake) as to do so increases the incidence of the hallucination.
The Johnson case is real but, and, as I haven't found he time to read the case report I stand to be corrected I do not see it giving consumer level rights to business buyers
The Johnson case is real but, and, as I haven't found he time to read the case report I stand to be corrected I do not see it giving consumer level rights to business buyers
Upvote
0
It doesn't. The fudiciary duty part looked like it may apply to all cases, but the final outcome is all about consumer law
Upvote
0
...or there are, but they did not have issues!
Looking at some of the other people/cases that have been quoted, they all look like people who took out a loan and didn't pay it back, hence legal action.
Upvote
0
One actually responded at length, confirming that they hadn't had any issues.
The problem the OP has, which is common to a lot of legal threads, is that they are leaning towards confirming their narrative rather than gathering any actual evidence of misselling. And everyone who has had a PG called in will be wanting a good old whinge, which achieves nothing.
Upvote
0
Yep as I said on my long post way back on Saturday - I use it, it is what it is, it’s expensive and not ideal but can work well in certain circumstances if needed and I found it totally transparent - each time you draw down you get a summary - you have a portal where you can see your charges/interest and would be able to pick up very quickly what the monthly cost was and hence would certainly realise it’s not 5.15 a year and you can see your balance come down each time payments are made and the interest go on - no different to a normal credit card - if others misunderstood it then personally I think that’s on them and they aren’t financially savvy enough to be borrowing for business.
Upvote
0
Exactly this and you can't run a business if you dont stick to the facts and are not prepared to take on board the advise given
Upvote
0
@perfumebrands didn’t get the answers they were hoping for and now perhaps realises they aren’t going to win this one. Maybe they will return and tell us the outcome but I suspect they are now long gone.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #91
Here is an update on our Change (dot) org petition:
Update: 12-Feb-2026 | 3 Minutes to Deadline – The Mask Slips as Iwoca Faces the "Unfair Relationship" Test
Iwoca Admits Their "Full Claim" is Unjustified. We just witnessed a major crack in the wall.
The high-cost lending industry has a secret: they are terrified of the "Unfair Relationship" test under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act. Today, we saw exactly what that fear looks like.
As many of you know, my business is challenging Iwoca’s aggressive 100%+ APR loans and predatory lending practices in court. Today was the final deadline for Iwoca to pay their court hearing fee to proceed to the trial on 5 March. Their response was a masterclass in why this industry needs urgent reform.
1. The Tactical Ambush
After dismissing my final attempt at a fair settlement days ago, Iwoca waited until 15:57—exactly three minutes before the 16:00 court payment deadline—to send a counter-offer.
This isn't a sincere attempt to resolve a dispute. It is a litigation trick. By sending an offer minutes before the deadline, they attempt to manufacture a "paper trail" that makes them look reasonable to a Judge, while giving the defendant zero time to respond. It is an attempt to force a "total surrender" under the pressure of a ticking clock.
2. An Admission of Guilt: The "Ceiling" has Dropped
There is a massive win hidden in their desperate offer. By offering to settle for thousands less than their original legal claim, Iwoca has made a silent but massive admission: They know their full claim is not based on actual costs or fair entitlement.
If they were truly "entitled" to the full amount, why drop the price the moment a Judge gets involved? The truth is, they haven't incurred expenses to justify those extra thousands. They are relying exclusively on misleading contractual terms—the very core of an "Unfair Relationship." They aren't seeking justice; they are simply trying to suck as much money out of a small business as possible before a public trial exposes their model.
3. Fear of Disclosure
Why the last-minute games? Because a trial on 5 March means Full Disclosure. Iwoca would be forced to open their books, show their internal risk assessments, and justify rates that are vastly out of step with competitive UK market standards.
Their actions today prove they are terrified of transparency. They would rather play games with email timestamps than have their interest rates and conduct scrutinized in open court.
Standing Our Ground
I have officially withdrawn all settlement offers. The window for a "friendly" compromise is closed. If Iwoca wants to proceed, they will do so facing the full weight of the evidence—including the voices of the 18 witnesses who have reported similar patterns of behavior.
We are no longer just defending a claim; we are demanding accountability for every small business owner who has been squeezed by high-cost credit.
Thank you for your continued support. Tomorrow, we move to the next phase: a Formal Request for Specific Disclosure. We are going to demand the internal secrets they are so desperate to hide.
#StopPredatoryLending #SmallBusinessJustice #IwocaExposed #Section140A #ConsumerCreditAct
Update: 12-Feb-2026 | 3 Minutes to Deadline – The Mask Slips as Iwoca Faces the "Unfair Relationship" Test
Iwoca Admits Their "Full Claim" is Unjustified. We just witnessed a major crack in the wall.
The high-cost lending industry has a secret: they are terrified of the "Unfair Relationship" test under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act. Today, we saw exactly what that fear looks like.
As many of you know, my business is challenging Iwoca’s aggressive 100%+ APR loans and predatory lending practices in court. Today was the final deadline for Iwoca to pay their court hearing fee to proceed to the trial on 5 March. Their response was a masterclass in why this industry needs urgent reform.
1. The Tactical Ambush
After dismissing my final attempt at a fair settlement days ago, Iwoca waited until 15:57—exactly three minutes before the 16:00 court payment deadline—to send a counter-offer.
This isn't a sincere attempt to resolve a dispute. It is a litigation trick. By sending an offer minutes before the deadline, they attempt to manufacture a "paper trail" that makes them look reasonable to a Judge, while giving the defendant zero time to respond. It is an attempt to force a "total surrender" under the pressure of a ticking clock.
2. An Admission of Guilt: The "Ceiling" has Dropped
There is a massive win hidden in their desperate offer. By offering to settle for thousands less than their original legal claim, Iwoca has made a silent but massive admission: They know their full claim is not based on actual costs or fair entitlement.
If they were truly "entitled" to the full amount, why drop the price the moment a Judge gets involved? The truth is, they haven't incurred expenses to justify those extra thousands. They are relying exclusively on misleading contractual terms—the very core of an "Unfair Relationship." They aren't seeking justice; they are simply trying to suck as much money out of a small business as possible before a public trial exposes their model.
3. Fear of Disclosure
Why the last-minute games? Because a trial on 5 March means Full Disclosure. Iwoca would be forced to open their books, show their internal risk assessments, and justify rates that are vastly out of step with competitive UK market standards.
Their actions today prove they are terrified of transparency. They would rather play games with email timestamps than have their interest rates and conduct scrutinized in open court.
Standing Our Ground
I have officially withdrawn all settlement offers. The window for a "friendly" compromise is closed. If Iwoca wants to proceed, they will do so facing the full weight of the evidence—including the voices of the 18 witnesses who have reported similar patterns of behavior.
We are no longer just defending a claim; we are demanding accountability for every small business owner who has been squeezed by high-cost credit.
Thank you for your continued support. Tomorrow, we move to the next phase: a Formal Request for Specific Disclosure. We are going to demand the internal secrets they are so desperate to hide.
#StopPredatoryLending #SmallBusinessJustice #IwocaExposed #Section140A #ConsumerCreditAct
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #93
This is a massive win. Legally, Iwoca cannot claim the full amount stated in their claim because they made a counter-offer, meaning they are ready to accept less payment than what they filed for (The difference is in the thousands of pounds).
And they cannot reveal the negotiation process to the judge because the entire settlement discussion is covered by WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS.
But this is only the first step. More to come later, so I can prove to all doubters that their bias towards Iwoca is focused on the wrong assumption that I am at fault, and Iwoca is a responsible lender. You, people, did not consider the possibility that Iwoca is a TRUE LOAN SHARK, in breach of multiple Unfair Relationship test principles.
And as they are suing me in person, they exposed themselves fully to the Unfair Relationship investigation, regardless of the fact that it is a business loan (because I am the guarantor of it and listed as a 2nd Defender).
Upvote
0
Why exactly are you posting here?
As many have already stated your lack of understanding in how loans work will prejudice your case. It’s also quite likely any settlement made by iwoca will come with an NDA. That’s how these things work.
I suggest you focus on the legal process rather than posting a lots of AI generated content.
As many have already stated your lack of understanding in how loans work will prejudice your case. It’s also quite likely any settlement made by iwoca will come with an NDA. That’s how these things work.
I suggest you focus on the legal process rather than posting a lots of AI generated content.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #95
Those who believe I did not pay back for my loan; I have paid the full principal + the APR that was misunderstood as agreed for, and disguised cleverly in the form of an affordable borrowing.
Iwoca is suing me because they want 120% of APR interest, that is the fundamental of my Unfair Relationships argument. People who are defending Iwoca now never had a clue to Iwoca's contracts and terms of agreement, and never read them before.
The court will look into this and decide who is right and who is wrong.
Iwoca is suing me because they want 120% of APR interest, that is the fundamental of my Unfair Relationships argument. People who are defending Iwoca now never had a clue to Iwoca's contracts and terms of agreement, and never read them before.
The court will look into this and decide who is right and who is wrong.
Upvote
0
That’s not how you explained it. Your suggestion was that repayments are deducted from the principal. Amortisation doesn’t work like that. Almost all your repayments in first few months just pays off the interest.
Nothing was cleverly disguised. It was all very clearly stated in the contract.
Nobody is defending iwoca. The argument is that you signed a contract without understanding how loans work.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #97
I am posting here for many reasons (Scouting for Testimonials, sharing status update, etc...) and also because it is always good to talk with open-minded people. You proved me right by highlighting the risk of NDA that I was not prepared for. Therefore, I would like to sincerely thank you for bringing it up!
At the moment, no settlement has been agreed for, althought Iwoca made a counter-offer in the last minute to apply pressure (They are asking for a Tomlin Order, as you highlighted).
I'll be careful not to agree to a Tomlin Order with a hidden NDA in its fine print. In fact, this is why I have no apetite for settlements any longer, and rather go to court, win or lose, and pay whatever the court asks me to pay through an in-court settlement (completely controlled by the juridical system).
But now, I know the ceiling/cap has been reduced, and with a real threat to Iwoca under Section 140A, I might actually manage to dismiss the case entirely, or pay just a little (In the judge's assessment of what a fair relationship resolution should be like).
You have been granted your wish too. My last 3 posts including this one, are actually not AI-generated.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #104
Actually, you’re operating on outdated assumptions. Under the Consumer Credit Act, the 'Unfair Relationships test (Section 140A) applies to any credit agreement involving an "individual" regardless of the business purpose or the existence of a PG.
The court isn't restricted to the terms of the contract; it is mandated to examine the entirety of the relationship, including the lender's conduct and the proportionality of the rates. The signature is the start of the investigation, not the end of it. I’ll be happy to update the forum on how the burden of proof shifts to the lender once this is invoked.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #105
It can also be established, as I am the sole director/shareholder and person with significant control (with no employees); the business loan term are affecting me directly and personally, supported with evidence that all payments were made from my personal bank account (Not the Company's).
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #106
Statements will show the movement of the entire borrowed principal from the business bank account Iwoca paid to, to my personal bank account (Clarifying that I am, as the individual guarantor, the 100% beneficiary of it), and will show that all payments I made back to settle the original principal + the missunderstood APR at that time, were made from "Yours Truly" bank account, not the business.
Upvote
0
There are several reasons why they will suggest compromise agreements, 2 of them being:
1. They are well aware that nobody can be sure what the outcome of a court case will be - and it will cost them time and money to attend.
2. They know that courts generally take a dim view of intransigence and respect attempts to negotiate a settlement. It's very likely that the judge will start proceedings by suggesting you both go outside and negotiate a last minute settlement. (What happened to recommended arbitration?)
These are things you need to be thinking about
1. They are well aware that nobody can be sure what the outcome of a court case will be - and it will cost them time and money to attend.
2. They know that courts generally take a dim view of intransigence and respect attempts to negotiate a settlement. It's very likely that the judge will start proceedings by suggesting you both go outside and negotiate a last minute settlement. (What happened to recommended arbitration?)
These are things you need to be thinking about
Upvote
0
This doesn't change the fact that you signed a loan agreement and failed to comply with that agreement. Your lack of understanding how loans work will not be accepted as a valid reason to renege on the contract.
If as @Mark T Jones suggests you are advised to arbitrate you will almost certainly be bound by an NDA. Which means you can't even talk about the case.
Upvote
0
Show me where it makes reference to a PG in Section 140a:
Consumer Credit Act 1974
An Act to establish for the protection of consumers a new system, administered by the Director General of Fair Trading, of licensing and other control of traders concerned with the provision of credit, or the supply of goods on hire or hire-purchase, and their transactions, in place of the...
At what point was the loan agreement you signed at any point unfair?
Upvote
0
Interesting point though; why would you be forced to agree to be bound by NDA to undertake arbitration? It's all going to come out in public anyway if it goes to court. Surely whether or not you agree to an NDA is as valid a red line as any other that might be held approaching arbitration? Or is there an expectation that you will go into an NDA process to enter arbitration, and without it arbitration will not happen?
Upvote
0
The Op doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of evidence - Kind of like Donald Trump, except that DT is deliberately avoiding and deflecting evidence. There is a real risk that a judge will suspect they are doing the same.
@perfumebrands - here are 3 things that DON'T constitute evidence:
Timelines
Contracts
Communications (ideally written)
Potentially anything else that can be fully verified.
@perfumebrands - here are 3 things that DON'T constitute evidence:
- AI. It will give you an uncomfortable mix of fact/fiction relevance/irrelevance. Your job as user is to translate that into concise, factual, relevant narrative. But it's still narrative, not evidence.
- People agreeing with you. Unless they can provide evidence, it's just noise.
- Wild assumptions. Particularly the assumption that your non-regulated agreement falls under the Consumer Credit Act. I have no words for that.
Timelines
Contracts
Communications (ideally written)
Potentially anything else that can be fully verified.
Upvote
0
My understanding is that the conent of arbitration isn't admissible in court (I stand to be corrected)
Where settlements are concerned, the NDA is to ensure that it doesn't lead to a tsunami of 'me too' claims.
Upvote
0
Sure, but if you were being minded to be awkward / public spirited (delete as appropriate!) - would it be considered unreasonable by a court if you said "No, I don't want to be bound by NDA, we can arbitrate, sure, but I'm not prepared to sign and NDA as part of the process". It may well in effect mean the other party simply won't engage with the process in the open.
Upvote
0
It was a business loan. The business is not a consumer.
Why would you do that? Regardless, Iwoca (and the courts) won't give a flying **** where the money goes after it's been deposited in your business account.
Irrelevant.
At least you agreed you misunderstood.
Do let us know the final outcome.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #118
I have reviewed the Personal Guarantee and Indemnity document in the fine print.
Does it contain an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement)?
No. There is no fine print or specific clause in this document that functions as an NDA or prevents me from discussing the terms of this guarantee, the loan, or my dispute with others.
But this is the original loan agreement. As for the Tomlin Order, of course, I'll pay attention. Thanks!
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #120
Hi,
I am not taking anything against myself personally. I understand why people voice different opinions. It is democracy, and I am in good terms with all of this
Honestly, I feel comfortable here, because everyone is professional in their own right. I respect everyone who discusses with me politely, even if we disagree on many things. This is the beauty of places like this.
I'll continue posting updates every now and then.
Cheers!
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
The Most Dangerous Moment in Business Is When Everything Is Going WellThey Saw It Coming. They Did Nothing. The Lessons Every Business Owner...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI and Your Business: Useful Tool, Not a Magic WandThere is no shortage of noise around artificial intelligence right now...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Companies House WebFiling security incident: what happened, what to check, and what to do nextCompanies House has confirmed that its WebFiling service suffered a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Spring Budget 2026: A Quiet Update for UK BusinessesChancellor Rachel Reeves delivered the UK’s Spring Statement on 3 March...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Practical Ways to Make Your Small Business More Resilient (Especially When the Unexpected Happens)Running a business means juggling plenty of things you can plan for and...- UKBF Editor
- Updated: