Hi,

I got the same letters from the 'pre-legal department',

I've complained to the ombudsman and the person dealing with it is an adjudicator called tim Emerton who hasn't got a clue how to interpret the act,

he thinks that a relevant claim means the company sending me letters and he thinks that the clock would start ticking when they stopped sending me letters,

which they never did, that seems to be the calibre of the ombudsman service folks.

I'm Scottish so it is the limitations and prescriptions act 1973,

I have actually had to walk him through what terms like 'appropriate date' and 'relevant claim' mean,

these definitions are all in the act, you just need to flick between sections 6, 9 and 4,

also acknowledgement is covered in section 10. it would be interesting to hear from others.

The only reason I got the loans in the first place was that they were loans from the government

and it was said at the time that people paying them back would provide the revenue to allow loans to be provided to students coming after us.

I was sold on the idea and I was always prepared to pay the money back to the government when I took the loans out,

but they sold my loans off for a fraction of their face value to these lowlifes before I even graduated,

if they were going to do that why didn't they offer it for sale to me?

Additionally speaking as a taxpayer the government have sold assets which were going to bring revenue into the treasury for practically

nothing meaning these companies are recovering money which was handed out by us the taxpayers

and all future loan money handed out by the SLC will again be provided from guess who? Us.

And a couple of years down the line the loans handed out by the SLC today will be sold again to one of these lowlife companies.

It's just a gradual transfer of taxpayers money into the coffers of private loan companies,

I wonder which ministers own shares in them?

To say that all this business has made me angry is quite an understatement.

Hi All,

I've got one of these cases with the ombudsman now as I made a complaint to them. They ombudsman seems to be a bit biased in favour of the loans company but I have counter argued and backed up what I say with references to the legislation, i'll post how it pans out once I know.

The claimant could have issued within time at last known address [deemed good service], because it did not it does not extend the limitation bar

The Ombudsman isn't interested in the legalities, as far as it is concerned if a debt is owed it will look for a fair resolution. This does not always reconcile with legislation.

If you do feel inclined to respond it should only be a couple of lines stating that you do not acknowledge any debt and in the event that it decides to pursue the matter you believe it to be subject to the limitation act and any cause is now time barred.

You may also want to give some consideration as to whether CPUT would be useful, fairly sure its currently untested at first instance but if you feel up to it it would certainly be interesting to have sight of a DCA's response to the matter. If you're not sure of your position then obviously don't if you think it will ultimately encourage a ping-pong game of letter tennis.

BF posted a few weeks back on similar issue http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440943-The-Consumer-Protection-from-Unfair-Trading-Regulations-2008-now-with-direct-right-of-action&highlight=misleading+actions+by+dca

I notice you've posted on a few thread

it could be useful to start one ofyour own..

start a new thread

dx

guys, i've had some success,

i went to the ombudsman with my statute barred complaint

originally the adjudicator was useless and misinterpreted the act,

i dis-agreed and demanded the case went to the ombudsman for a final decision

they have upheld my complaint and are instructing hounours student loans to write off my debt.

it was hard work though and

i had to specify and interpret every wee bit of the legislation for them.

I'd advise going down the same route, apparently they are publishing my case on the FOS website so you can read it there.

good luck

success,

I argued my case and demanded a final decision by the ombudsman rather than the previous person and they had upheld my complaint,

they are instructing honours student loans to write off my student loan.

My case will appear on the FOS website they say so you can read it.

I think this may be the first one of these cases to go to the ombudsman unless anyone knows of another

and this will set a precedence for others drop me a mail if you need advice arguing your case.

great news

how it should have been.

post the ref when you have it

dx

own thread created posts moved here

dx

Very pleased for you. Sadly you do have to push for a good decision from the Ombudsman, which is not how it should be at all. Well done for sticking with it

Well done for persevering, sensible result

Hi All,

here is the link to my case on the FOS website, it seems a bit wishy washy in language but i think that is to avoid a complete U-turn given that the useless adjudicator originally made a decision that it was not statute barred.

it doesn't want to allow me to post a link until my posts reach 10 which is odd but if you put the www in front of the following it will work

ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=80137

You will need to retitle your file name, taking "ombudsman" off. As the word Ombudsman is an autolink.. it messes up file links

Upheld, but they have fudged around the statute barred issue.

I note the HSL tried to mislead the ombudsman that the 5 year prescription period did not run because Mr T had not updated his address. Complete nonsense, as HSL are well aware, but they obviously hoped the ombudsman could be duped.

Didn't matter in the end as seems to have turned out that Mr T had not moved anyway within the 5 years. lol

And the ombudsman considered in unfair that they had made no effort to chase or default the account in the meantime, which seems to be the more important reason for their decision.

This link work?

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=80137

Thanks WindySock, that link works with yours,

Yes they definately have fudged around with the statute barred issue, i think the reason for that is because the adjudicator originally disagreed with me and said it was not statute barred giving two reasons which did not correspond to anything in the legislation which i have read back to front and have become quite knowledgeable about. I sent quite detailed and precise responses quoting the 1973 act to the letter which they would have found difficult to contradict, hence they seem to have worded their final decision in such a way that it isn't admitting the first guy made a complete cock up of interpreting the legislation.

In order for this decision to have the most value for everyone else in the same situation it needed to be clear and unequivocal but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the way the FOS works. The email chain between myself and the adjudicator shows how poorly informed these people in the FOS are, the guy dealing with my case plucked reasons for rejecting my complaint out of thin air, backing them up with nothing at all.

Thank you windysock

I suspect that had HSL taken this to court then they would have been told the same - and might even have got a ticking of for trying to mislead the ombudsman (or the court) in respect of the status of the debt.

It is very rare that I would accept a first tier adjudicator's decision, they pretty much always have to be challenged and it is if they are specifically employed to reject any claim at the first hurdle. I wonder if they are ex bank staff who previously worked in the PPI claims rejection department !

Anyway, despite the phaffing from the FOS, you got a result. I would however take bets that should a similar case arise, that person would also find themselves faced with an uphill battle.

If you look at the required and current qualifications or experience (or lack of them) for FOS adjudicators in particular, but also ombudsman, you will see why they more often than not make idiotic ill informed decisions.