Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Could you link us to BankFodder's post please? The judge's office means something different to me. HB
    • Hi LFI, With regard to the ANPR cameras in your post #65, while I was on the phone to the Planning Department, they did take a look at Google Streetview and went back to 2012 where they could see the ANPR cameras in place so therefore they would have deemed consent. I had previously read the T&C Planning Regulations and had read the section on deemed consent so I understood the point they made on the phone. It doesn't matter though, that doesn't harm my case any, and I shouldn't really mention this now, (this is what you reminded me of on another thread) but in the past I was a member of a scheme that gave me access to legal advice, I have spoken to a barrister previously through this scheme on another matter and I think I am still a member. I am going to check if I am still a member of the scheme, and if I am I will discuss my case with a barrister or solicitor, whichever the scheme deems appropriate. I will let you know the outcome. I am also going to take Bankfodders advice in the sticky and go to the local court and ask if I can sit in on a case in the Judges office.
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx Yes sorry. they called it a deed at first in court.  Then Judge said she was happy to have it sealed as something else  exact names of orders in message above.     The disease was tested for when his cardiac testing was done immediately after purchase and part of the now sealed case.   However, results were disclosed incorrectly and I only found out  two days ago.   This disease did not form part of my knowledge during the case as I had been informed of a normal result that was not the case.   it is perfect clarity of a genetic disease where as the previous cardiac issue could be congenital until the pup is genetically tested. 
    • Hi, Halifax recently sold a credit card account of mine to Cabot. I am unemployed and have no assets and was thinking of making token £1 payments for 12-18 months in order to drag things out a bit and reduce the chance of Cabot being able to get the correct CCA documents from Halifax if I requested them in future. However, I saw on the pages on this forum about defending county court claims that one of the standard approaches when defending such claims is to say “I had an account with bank X, but I don’t remember the details and so don’t know if I owe this debt…”. If I made £1 payments to Cabot, would it prevent me from using such a defence in future? OC: Halifax DC: Cabot/Wescot Card account opened: 2016 Defaulted: 2023
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Northern Rock mortgage shortfall from 2002 - Arrows/shoosmiths.


Jason Toulmin
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2077 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

Hi All,

 

I have been chased since 2007 on a Northern Rock mortgage shortfall from 2002. I have never admitted liability for said debt and I have never made a payment.

 

Shoosmiths on behalf of Arrow are now saying that I made a payment in 2008 which re-sets the statute barred status that I told them it has. I have never ever made a payment, the only money that has been sent was to cover the cost of a SAR in late 2007.

 

After 2007 everything went quiet until 2013, eventually when I wrote back and forth a few times the DCA said their "case was closed" on this matter.

 

Roll forward to 2017 and they start again until November 2017 then quiet again until last week.

 

I believe that fraud is being committed here and wondered what others in my situation would do?

 

I am thinking of going direct to Action Fraud and reporting them, I am, tbh, sick and tired of this harassment.

 

I apologise if I delay to respond to anyone who replies as I am busy through this afternoon.

 

Thank you in advance.

Edited by Jason Toulmin
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not fraud..its harassment.... though although they are allowed to chase a statute barred debt...they are not allowed to litigate on it.

 

How is the harassment being conducted...Phone...letters or texts ?

 

And who exactly is doing the harassing now ?

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that as I haven't ever made a payment on the account and they have "magic'd" one from somewhere that would be classed as fraudulent activity as they are using that to say the debt isn't statute barred.

 

If they have, in they I mean maybe Lawsmiths who I sent an SAR to with a postal order for £10 in November 2007 or of course Arrow or Shoosmiths but I really don't know as Arrow took it over in 2013 and used drydens prior to Shoosmiths.

 

I am sorry that I am not being very clear hear,

this has been going on since 2007 and I do have all correspondence but it has been bounced from DCA to DCA,

the account was "closed" at one point,

there have been huge gaps between correspondence.

 

This lot are clowns,

have never answered a straight question,

never fully fulfilled an SAR on a mis-sold property from over 16 years ago

and now they have somehow found a random one off payment in 2008 which I never made on an account that I have never acknowledged the debt on.

It is a farce!

 

All of the correspondence is by letter,

including the one stating I made a payment,

which if I had then there wouldn't have been an argument from that point forward,

but they have still pushed,

and for 10yrs since 2008 and have never once mentioned this magic payment.....

.....until now.

 

I will add that once I did get a phone call,

the lady on the other end didn't introduce herself,

she said hello "my name",

shall we discuss a payment you made on an account,

at which point I put the phone down.

 

I now no longer answer the phone if I don't know the number and if I am honest when the postman comes it has a physical effect on me,

when I opened the Shoosmiths letter last week my hand shook.

I am close to going to the doctors and just reporting my symptoms on this,

surely this is unfair behaviour.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Then put all the letters in a box...keep safe but forget all about it...end of harassment.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

retitled and moved to repo forum

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

If they are saying that a payment in 2008 has reset the statue bar clock then invite them to do the following, highly complicated, maths equation that even Einstein himself might struggle with.

 

2018 - 2008 = 10

 

Debts under simple contract become statue barred after 6 years... So the 2008 payment is irrelevant because it's SB again anyway as that was 10 years ago!

 

Payment of £10 for a SAR in 2017 also has no effect on the SB clock as that is a fee covered under the Data Protection Act 1998 and has no bearing to the debt itself. Since GDPR however the £10 fee is no longer needed for a SAR.

 

Sooner or later a DCA may just be able to learn how to count to 6... :madgrin:

This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are saying that a payment in 2008 has reset the statue bar clock then invite them to do the following, highly complicated, maths equation that even Einstein himself might struggle with.

 

2018 - 2008 = 10

 

Debts under simple contract become statue barred after 6 years... So the 2008 payment is irrelevant because it's SB again anyway as that was 10 years ago!

 

Payment of £10 for a SAR in 2017 also has no effect on the SB clock as that is a fee covered under the Data Protection Act 1998 and has no bearing to the debt itself. Since GDPR however the £10 fee is no longer needed for a SAR.

 

Sooner or later a DCA may just be able to learn how to count to 6... :madgrin:

 

The debt in question is mortgage shortfall so 12yrs for SB however it is now 16yrs anyway. The none existent payment is either a complete fabrication or a misappropriation of funds via the SAR £10 from 2007. Either way, the debt is still SB, no question whatsoever.

 

BTW, you mention the £10 for SAR not being required now, how long has that been the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for clarity and benefit of readers Jason...and not that it effects you either way......shortfalls can be either 6 or 12 years subject to whether the shortfall is interest/charges etc...or actual mortgage capital.

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you called them out on the £10 payment they will merely say it was an error made by someone else guv and they will now take note but up to that point they will insist that they are right and you owe them a zillion quid.

 

Dont forget, they are working for someone else and only get a decent payday if they get a result.

They arent bothered how they get to that point

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...