Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About RedPillGuy

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Body of letter sent: You have repeatedly contacted me via letter and SMS message regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself. I would point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5: “An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.” I would point out that in their consumer credit sourcebook, the Financial Conduct Authority states the following rules: "...a firm must not attempt to recover a statute barred debt in England, Wales or Northern Ireland if the lender or owner has not been in contact with the customer during the limitation period." 7.15.4 "A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred." 7.15.8 The last payment or acknowledgement of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed. I await your written confirmation that no further contact will be made concerning the above account and confirmation that this matter is now closed. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully
  2. Link Financial keep chasing the alleged debt, even after losing in court, by letter and frequent text messages. I wrote to them to state the debt is statue barred (last payment December 2011), they have written back saying its not SB, as it was not defaulted by MBNA until 31May 2012. Should I just wait 1 month then write again after 31 May with another SB letter? My fear is that they will keep pestering even after that date - Or should i raise a Ombudsman complain straight away to get them to stop? Their letter says that they can keep contacting me even if 6 years has passed, if we have been in contact during that period - which I guess is interpretative as we were "in contact" during the court case.
  3. Can you point me to the ICO rules so I can quote them?
  4. Jan 12. So I'm confident its SB, its just I would like it off my credit file earlier, not be penalised because Mercers took so long to register the Default with CRA
  5. Quick question - On the Egg card, the DN was issued by Mercers (on Barclaycard letterhead) on 14 March 2012. However , on my credit files the default is not showing as listed until 15/8/12 some 5 months later. now I'm happy I can show that its SB some time aound March, but does anyone know if I can get the Credit file entries removed earlier if I can provide the DN to them? Why would they wait 5 months to actually file the default?
  6. You would still need to refute their assertion that the payment agreement (£ over Y months) was subsequent to the default and that it flows from it and would not itself be valid unless a valid DN was served. Did they TERMINATE the original agreement? If so what date - do you have a notice of termination? The DN is important as the remedy time and amount needs to align with other data. I won because the remedy amount was over stated. Remember that you just need to get the WS in today. They still may choose not to go to court without a DN and are trying to get you to blink. Even on the day, you can present your argument based on further research between now and then. Do you have a court date? Do they have any further court fees to pay?
  7. Looks like they can't find the DN so are trying to argue that they don't need one as they are claiming your payment agreement would have fully paid it back over time, hence no need for DN. I would counter argue that the do need a DN (and quote sections of CCA). Did they terminate the CC agreement? If they did, you should still argue that they need to demonstrate this was done lawfully, or else the "agreement to pay" follows from that, and would also not be lawful. Andy, not sure how this argument would stack up, as they can simple say " we have a record one was sent" and not produce it?
  8. its been a week and not seen anything from the courts to confirm judgement, nor heard from Kearns regarding the payment of costs. how long does the court usually take to issue the judgement? Also, looking at my credit file, I see that the original default shows as Closed, but that Link had registered a new default in their name (updated 8/8/17). it still shows the default date 31/5/12 so should fall off in May next year? They also have stated the balance to include all that interest that they are not entitled to without a court judgement. Should I write to Link and demand removal from the credit file, as the court found the DN faulty, hence the termination was an unlawful recession?
  9. Mate, I have just won against Link/Kearns on an old MBNA card. Looking at your attachments - that looks like some bastard son of an application form and an agreement. I would start by arguing its an APPLICATION not an agreement. Secondly have you checked all the mandatory terms are on there - I can't see the requisite notice of your right to cancel. More importantly, have you requested under court procedures any documents on which they intend to rely in. court - specifically the default notice, and any Notices of Sums in Arrears. I won primarily on the DN - it was non compliant on days to remedy, but more importantly overstated the breech - which I only discovered by looking at the NOSIAs and statements. Have a look on my thread for documents I used - witness stantement and skeleton arguement might help. that said, you need to quickly get up to speed on the Consumer Credit Act and really understand it so as to be able to argue your case
  10. Thanks. So do you think the judge was wrong in law? We didn't really get into DSR, simply s76 definition of cancellable which then flows through to the requirement to be in the actual agreement. Given how much time and money Kearns put into this, and gut feel on if they will appeal, or is this just a sausage machine to them?
  11. Court today. Won with costs. Thank you Andy. Kearns sent a agent down from London who was read into the brief but wasted a lot of time on irrelevant issues. Judge pretty much demolished my arguments around the non-enforceable agreement. He accepted the online agreement as original. He accepted the tickbox as valid execution signature. He accepted that the T&C were "in one document" even though you had to click a link to a separate web page. I kind of expected all those. Interestingly though he also accepted the Claimant's assertion that the agreement was non-cancel-able because no antecedent negotiations took place, hence no notice of cancellation was required in the agreement. Interested on anyones feedback on that. Finally he turned to the DN. He said that the Claimants assertion "had some force" that the notice period being to short was deminimus as I did not rectify in any case, but that the error on overstating the default amount was fatal.
  12. they seem to be trying to muddy the waters - for example saying that s76 DN doesn't apply because they could have terminated under s98 contractual termination in any case - which is NOT the case they are fighting in court! Also claiming that although the Court of appeal in Brandon saying 14 days is not deminimus - that because it was an appeal against a SJ, it only makes it arguable, and did not step away from Woodchester and Swayne "the court might overlook an error that is deminimus"
  13. Nervous now - court 12 tomorrow. Any advice on their skelton? (attached above)
  14. A few points I could really do with some help on. 1. I had argued that the T&C were taken from 2 documents, but they argue at least the the Sch6 prescribed terms are in the min body, not the "click her" further T&C. Can it be the case that as long as the Sch6 terms are in the "4 corners" its valid? s61 states ALL the Terms and Conditions", other than implied terms. 2. I had further argued that the Agreement simply stated "once you have signed the agreement you will have a short time in which you can cancel it. We will send you exact details of how and when you can do this" s64 says A notice in the prescribed form" . Where can i find the prescribed format?
  • Create New...