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. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • 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.   
  • 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

Ruthbridge/Cabot Northern rock loan - Not sure if debt is statute barred.


Cupid72
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1890 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

Newbie here and I am hoping you guys can point me in the right direction.

 

I've been lurking on here for a few days trying to find out various tips and information regarding my problem. I got into trouble after loosing my job in 2009. I had a lot of debt and couldn't make payments anymore. Entered into an iva in late 2010, made about 5 payments and then lost my new job and had to cancel the iva.

 

I just cancelled my direct debit to the iva and never got in contact with them again. They eventually officially cancelled my iva in spring 2013 and started to get letters from various dcas regarding my individual debts that were in my iva. I paid a couple of credit cards off via dcas with a reduced f and f and got that in writing. But there is one particular debt that hasnt raised its head much.

 

It was for a loan originally with Northern rock which I'm pretty sure was taken out pre 2007. Now I heard nothing about this until about spring 2017. I received a letter from a dca (can't remember who) so I stupidly phoned them up. I said I don't recall this debt so I need some sort of proof of claim.

 

They then left me alone until Cabot sent me a letter in summer 2017. Letter and phone calls ignored, it then went quiet until last weekend when it's being passed to ruthbridge. I presume, because I've not made a payment since originally defaulting, the statute barred clock would start from when my IVA officially finished??

 

I've only 2 or 3 months to go before it's 6 years from that date so do I just ignore for now?

 

Thanks in advance guys.

 

Edited by Andyorch
Font size increased and paras added
Link to post
Share on other sites

ruthbridge are just another trading name for cabot group.

 

sb date will be from your last payment through the IVA, regardless to the fact it wasn't officially failed until 2013

so well statute barred.

 

you can either totally ignore them or send our SB letter.

have you moved since your last payment?

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 would suspect its like the numerous other threads here whereby cabot and others are chasing nrock/nram loans

its the unsecured loan part of a mortgage deal..to make up to 100% or even 110% ...no deposit mortgages they did.

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

Yes I've moved house but I was living with my brother so I can easily pick up any mail from there.

 

It was an unsecured loan.

 

Your now telling me the sb date runs from the last payment?

Not when the iva officially failed??

 

Everyone else in a similar situation has said the clock starts again from when the iva failed.

 

Hope you're right guys.

Can anyone confirm this 100%???

 

I've moved house but never paid anything on this debt since the iva failed in spring 2013.

 

I thought that when an iva fails the insolvency practiononer had to inform my creditors therefore acknowledging the debt on my behalf?

 

So logic would suggest that the clock started again when that contact was made??

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant find and never have ….any case whereby any letter was ever used in court by a claimant as the sole reason to counter an SB date defence.

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

again post 6 applies

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

" Your now telling me the sb date runs from the last payment?

Not when the iva officially failed?? Everyone else in a similar situation has said the clock starts again from when the iva failed."

 

And they would be correct...you are basically making a payment through the IVA to the creditor...so it would run from the last payment made by the IVA.

 

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

Thanks for that. I really appreciate everyone's feedback and advice. But I've read other people's comments who claim that it's actually from the date the iva failed. They also sound very confident and convincing.. They are claiming this on the basis that the creditors would have to be informed that the iva failed....

For the sake of a couple of months I don't think it's worth sending an sb letter just yet. I think I'm going to try to ignore them as long as possible and then try various delay tactics if needed. i.e. CCA them.

Unless there's anything else you guys suggest otherwise?

Thanks again guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the IVA failed, your insolvency practitioner would have written to all of your creditors and informed then that the debt which you owe is no longer being paid through the IVA as it is being terminated. This is the date at which the last acknowledgement of the debt is made so statute barring starts from when the IVA was terminated and not the date of the last payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I'm erring on the side of caution. It seems like I'm getting conflicting advice. I will wait until after the 6 years are up from the iva fail date, (which is only in May.)before thinking about sending an sb letter. I will CCA them nearer the time if getting bombarded with threats.

Thanks, Will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An IVA is legally binding so while you are in an IVA, your creditors can take no further legal action against you. Missing a couple of payments does not terminate the IVA so your creditors have no cause of action, you and your creditors are still bound by the IVA. The notice of termination informs you and your creditors that the IVA is no longer legally binding on the debts you have included in the IVA so the date of the termination gives creditors cause of action to take further legal action against you.

 

It would be unfair on creditors if the cause of action started when you failed to make a payment in to the IVA as they are unable to take any legal action against you at that point. Statue barring starts from the cause of action which is when the IVA is terminated. Up until the date of termination, the IVA is in place in which you admit liability for the debts. Until that agreement is terminated, your acknowledgement of liability does not end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Will. That makes it much clearer. I had a strong suspicion this was the case anyway. I just needed confirmation.

Can I ask if you know how the limitation clock is affected by claiming ppi.

Does it only restart the clock on a successful claim where the redress goes straight to the dca or original creditor?

Or is it even if you get paid out and receive the money in your name.

I presume a ppi claim that gets knocked back does not reset the clock? Others have already said it doesn't but I'd like your veiw if possible Will.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the PPI claim itself which is an admission of liability so any claim for a debt which is not statute barred will restart the limitation period regardless of which party receives the payout.

 

Where a PPI claim was rejected, it would depend at which stage that happened and the reasons why. A PPI claim directly to a creditor acknowledging the debt is technically an admission of liability but unlikely to be presented as evidence in my view. Whereas the creditor may not even be aware of a PPI claim if it was rejected by a claims management company. There are a lot of variables without further information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but that's not correct on either count.

 

nowhere is there any evidence of anyone ever being taken to court because an IVA failure letter reset SB

nor

that a PPI reclaim reset the SB.

 

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

Received another letter this morning from ruthbridge. Offering me 70% off for a final settlement. If they don't receive any response they may be forced to pass the account back to Cabot. I'm thinking they must realise this debt is either unenforceable or they doubt they would be able to collect on this account?

Thoughts anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

90% next

That'll be the ppi and all the unlawful penalty charges

Which of course if you were to successfully reclaim would need to be removed from the supposed balance probably leaving nothing left to owe

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

It's usual practice offering a discount to encourage a payment. If it is almost six years since the date on the certificate of termination you can chance it and use delaying tactics or ignore them. They can either make a claim against you or not. It doesn't seem as if they have long left to do that which is probably the reason for all of the recent contact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...