Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
      • 161 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

Link adding interest to 2 GE old sold loan debts


roaringgirl
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2208 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

  • 1 year later...
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I am about to ditch my dmp with Payplan

- I cca'd my creditors and only RBS and Link back to me with properly executed and signed agreements.

 

This is fine - I will pay.

 

However, Link have doubled my debt from 1k to 2k on each of the debts I have with them .

I fail to see why the hell I should pay them an extra 2k.

 

I know that they are very aggressive

so Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I go about dealing with this ?

 

I have SAR'd RSB but not Link

- would that be the first thing I should do

- and will they freeze the account whilst they are complying with my request?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the crap link add. They cant add anything. It is an old trick they do that sadly many people fall for, and the owner of link has made tens of millions off it.

 

Regarding SAR, it goes to the OC. NOT the DCA. The only thing the dca gets is a CCA.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

what are the debts

and the details from your cra file

 

NEVER trust link

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link debts are from GE money - I owed two debts of approx 1k each

- over the past 7 years they have added interest to the tune of 1k on each debt.

 

I am prepared to Pay what I owe ( I need to check but I think I have done already ) but not to pay this fictitious interest .

 

They won't let go, so what is my next step ?

 

Oh - and they are not on my cra file

Link to post
Share on other sites

what a surprise there then!

 

so the usual games then...

 

the dmp provider nor yourself did any checks on the debts before payments through the plan started.

 

have you got any paperwork yourself?

 

if the oc terminated the agreement then its rather out of order

for a debt Buyer to add interest .

 

but typical of link to pull this stunt.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ppi ? penalty charges?

 

store cards or loans?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the only way you will get Link to comply is in front of a judge... Thats my thoughts on Link.

Deal with them in writing and tell them they have to comply with removing the interest because its not fair that they have added this.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

since writing last ,

 

Link have finally decided to send one of my debts to their solicitors.

 

I have paid back the debt but because they added interest AFTER it had gone to PayPlan,

the "debt" now stands at £1875.

 

But I have actually paid back the debt.

 

It is enforceable. So what shall I do now ?

 

Tempted to SAR them and take it from there.

 

What if they take me to court?

 

I have paid the damn debt!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

so did you get the PPI back on the cards?

 

sorry but you should have stopped paying years ago.

 

kearns are nothing more than a change of letterhead in the same printer.

 

you keep saying these debts are enforceable

 

who says?

 

we've never seen the CCA returns for each one.

 

no you don't sar a DCA

 

if the cards were terminated by GE money

then a debt buyer cannot add interest

the agreement [the act] has been terminated.

 

you are being fleeced blind..

 

nothing new for link mind.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your answer. However, I need to make one thing clear, these debts are not for store cards. I have no idea who put this in the title because it's not true.

 

They are for a front door and two windows and were loans from GE Money.

 

The debts date from 2005 and 2006.

 

I haven't paid them anything for at least 18 months. During this time they have not contacted me other than to send me statements.

 

I know I have paid back the original amount since I defaulted in October 2006.

 

I paid into Payplan untilDecember 2013.

 

I also know I have paid more than the original debt.

 

I do not agree that I should pay them unfair interest applied after I had gone into a DMP.

 

Link have now passed one of the accounts onto their solicitors.

 

My question now is what do I do?

I do not want to go to court.

 

 

After all this time and now seeing light at the end of the tunnel, I do not want to go through the ropes all over again.

 

Do I ignore?

Do I wait and then challenge?

What?

 

The debts are enforceable - I CCA'd them a couple of years back and they produced the original documentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again they cannot add anything after the agreement was terminated. You've fallen hook line and sinker for their tricks

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry store cards was me

 

even worse then if its silly loans

 

the interest as you say should have been stopped when you went into the DMP with PP

 

does the T&C's state they can charge interest after its been sold/terminated

I bet not.

 

if the extra interest had not been added

the debts would now be clear.?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ppi time then

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debts are enforceable - I CCA'd them a couple of years back and they produced the original documentation.

 

If thats true then somethings amiss. Link would have taken you to court a long time ago if they had valid cca's in their posession.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry store cards was me

 

even worse then if its silly loans

 

the interest as you say should have been stopped when you went into the DMP with PP

 

does the T&C's state they can charge interest after its been sold/terminated

I bet not.

 

if the extra interest had not been added

the debts would now be clear.?

 

Yes, the debts would have been clear.

 

 

what do I do with the Solicitors then? I

don't know about the T's and C's -

I will fish out tomorrow.

 

Still leaves me with the question of what to do with the solicitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's time to raise a complaint to GE Money and Link... Do you have the CCAs? Can you post them up?

 

I can help pre legal as best as i can...

 

If we can tie them up, it will prevent legal action being taken ideally... And if they reject, we can refer it to the FOS... That'll tie it up even more

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI the FOS would more than likely rule in your favour should it need to go that far... If they do attempt to go legal while they are being tied, it should bring a halt to the proceedings while your "Concerns" are resolved.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be the contractual interest due and the T&C's would allow for this to be applied.

 

Sounds like it would be either a home improvement or holiday ownership loan from GE Money.

 

If a judgement has been entered then the terms of the judgement will allow for this interest to be added.

 

FOS will have no jurisdiction in this if that is the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...