Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

What do DCAs pay for a debt?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5960 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Apologies if my threads are peppering the board like a rash but I have all kinds of questions and I don't want to hijack other people's threads.

 

I've been wondering what percentage of the original balance is paid by DCAs to the original creditor, to purchase a debt? Is there a set percentage or does it vary?

 

Reason I'm asking is that, if it ever came to me wanting to settle a debt with a DCA (unlikely as things are now :(), I'd want to have some idea of a realistic figure to put forward.

 

If say, the original debt was £10K, would the DCA have paid £8K, £5K or even £2K?

 

My instinct would be to try and settle a debt like that for say £3K if I could. Does that ever happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If say, the original debt was £10K, would the DCA have paid £8K, £5K or even £2K?

 

More likely £1K. They usually pay around 10% of the value of an unsecured debt.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does beg the question - why on earth do the banks not make the debtor the offer of a full and final at 10% rather than selling it on to these vultures?

Because there would be no tax benefit to the bank in doing so.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does beg the question - why on earth do the banks not make the debtor the offer of a full and final at 10% rather than selling it on to these vultures?:confused: :confused:

 

Very annoying really. Don't quite understand the logic.....if there is any that is:rolleyes:

 

Firstly, they don't want to make it easy on people who don't fulfill their commitments...

 

and, secondly, because the Tax Man will enable them to write off a substantial amount of the debt against profit, which wouldn't happen if they were to do the same thing to their client.

 

Don't forget... many of the banks OWN DCA's as part of their business strategy.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax break is bigger if they writing off the whole of the debt........oops got there to late. Tomterm8's given you a fuller answer.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, a whole industry has been built up the back of the misery of others.

Some of the trolls that scour this site should look to their own corners before they go about criticising us and questioning our morality:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely right. It's all a big rip off and another way of profiteering for Banks. Ironically, there's money to made from debts!!

 

 

Settling your debts

 

That site is obviously very USA but take alook around, it makes a very interesting read considering many of our own DCA's/Purchasers are US based or influenced.

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal experience.

The DCAs buy at various risk categories.

As you say usually around the 10% mark.

I'm dealing with an alleged debt for a third party, CCA'd the DCA and they sent background paperwork instead of the agreement. It showed they paid 2%!

Admittedly this was an old debt almost statute barred with very little chance of contact/payment from the debtor.

Bottom feeders indeed:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting dom2. Can you scan the papers to the site - I'm sure they would make interesting reading. Wonder if the figures quoted by Cattell related to GE Money/Capital Bank who were recently dumped by Harrods? Vandermerwe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Sorry but I don't want to upload anything until it's sorted. After that I'll send all stuff such as this to the website.

 

It's simply a computer print out headed creditsolve - live; legal report.

Gives the date acquired and in line5 says ....

P/£ - 0.0249

 

Oh, and now they confirm that there's no copy of agreement.

 

It seems to me that many contributors on this site are in a similar position. Nice to know just how little the DCAs pay for high risk lots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

if a CREDITOR sells a debt & claims tax relief when in default is it legal?

 

imagine a creditor assigns/sells an alleged debt whilst in default of the CCAct 1978 section 78 and then claims tax relief ----- has anyone thought of writing to the tax people to inform them that the account in question was in default [of the CCAct 1978 section 78 ] and consequently this is an illegal action ??

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

if a CREDITOR sells a debt & claims tax relief when in default is it legal?

 

imagine a creditor assigns/sells an alleged debt whilst in default of the CCAct 1978 section 78 and then claims tax relief ----- has anyone thought of writing to the tax people to inform them that the account in question was in default [of the CCAct 1978 section 78 ] and consequently this is an illegal action ??

 

 

Why would it be illegal?

All the default ascertains is that the debt is unenforceable, it still exists.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it be illegal?

All the default ascertains is that the debt is unenforceable, it still exists.

 

This is an interesting point.

 

If the total amount of the debt to be written off is made up of illegal charges and interest that are not contractually agreed (e.g. through the clear absence of a CCA) then I would suggest that claiming tax write-off on the total balance MAY be interpreted as theft/obtaining money by deception.

 

The analogy would be a company writing off bad debt against its corporation tax, knowing that the actual amount is almost certainly less. So for example, the sum defaulted for a credit card is £8 K and the OC has added say £2 K in interest/charges (now £10 K) and sold the bad debt for £1 K they would be claiming tax relief on £9 K. The £9 K would be incorrect by virtue of the charges and interest especially if it was know that no such agreement exists between the parties. Hence they would be obtaining tax relief on a higher amount = deception/theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't stress about the tax consequences of OC's geting rid of agreements to DCA's as it's about income, not loss.

 

The reason that they let the DCA's do the reduction for them is quite less dramatic. An analogy - you go into a shop and on one side is a 46" LCD tv for £1000. "that's too much" you say. The assistant says "go upstairs - the same model is £100". Well, I know where I'd do my buying!

 

OC's are in the same position as the shop. The money page of the Daily Mail would be full of articles saying that you only had to pay 10% of your credit card balance to clear it if they started doing that. Yes, there's the odd exception where they will do that - but it isn't THAT common. Using DCA's is just a method of having someone at arm's length do the reduction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aUsing DCA's is just a method of having someone at arm's length do the reduction.
.......and cause worry and misery to people, many of which are completely unable to handle debt and who lose their homes, belongings, wives and, in some cases, commit suicide to end it all.

 

Satan must be very happy, rubbing his hooves together in glee.

 

I sometimes wonder how DCA employees sleep at night.

 

Vandermerwe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd clarify one point mentioned in that site (I know, it's an old post, but I've only just read it ;)).

 

Making a repayment after a debt is statute barred in the US is different from over here. In the UK, the clock CANNOT be restarted afterwards.

 

So if you have a debt that was statute barred, and a DCA has convinced you to make a repayment after the 6 year time bar, STOP PAYING RIGHT NOW. They CANNOT enforce a debt afterwards, and if they have told you that your 6 years has restarted, THEY HAVE LIED TO YOU!!!!

 

But that's no big surprise, I suppose. :D

 

Absolutely right. It's all a big rip off and another way of profiteering for Banks. Ironically, there's money to made from debts!!

 

 

Settling your debts

 

That site is obviously very USA but take alook around, it makes a very interesting read considering many of our own DCA's/Purchasers are US based or influenced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...