Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Student Loans and Statute of limitations/CCA CSL DCA


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4857 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

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Taken from the National Debtline website...

 

STUDENT LOANS

 

Student loan agreements are simple contracts and this gives the Student Loans Company (SLC) six years from the date you last paid or acknowledged the debt to go to court to enforce the agreement.

There are two sorts of student loans and different rules apply depending upon when you took out the loan.

Old style student loans

Old style or ‘mortgage’ student loans are consumer credit agreements. Payments cannot automatically be deducted from your wages.

The SLC has to go to court before they can enforce the debt against you. This means that the Limitation Act can apply if you have not paid or acknowledged the debt for over six years.

WARNING

Asking for the loan to be deferred could count as acknowledging the debt and start time running again.

New style student loans

From September 1998 new style or ‘income contingent’ student loans include rules to say that repayments will be automatically deducted directly from your wages or through your tax return if you are self-employed.

This means that the SLC are still allowed to take money from your wages for a loan over six years old as they do not have to go to court to do so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend sending them the statue barred letter....it is also against the OFT's rules if they pursue you when you have said that you will not pay anything against a statute barred debt...

 

use letter 'M' from here...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also taken from national debtline web site...

 

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has issued debt collection guidance which looks at whether a debt is being collected fairly.

They say:

• it is unfair to pursue the debt if you have heard nothing from the creditor for six years;

• the OFT thinks it is fair to keep trying to recover the debt if the creditor has been in regular contact with you during this time;

• it is unfair to mislead you by saying the debt is still legally recoverable when it isn’t; 

• it is unfair to keep pressing for payment after you have told them you won’t be paying the debt because it is statute barred.

If this is happening then you can complain to your local trading standards department in the council.

They can take up your case for you.

You can also complain to the OFT. Their address is at the end of the fact sheet.

The OFT does not usually take up individual cases but their debt collection licensing enforcement team collects information that can be used to take action against problem creditors, who can even lose their consumer credit licence. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I sent the Statute Barred letter to them (CSL) and it was delivered and signed for on Monday the 3rd. Since then I have received a phone message from them everyday (either a computerised voice message or a BT text message) as well as a "we will be calling" card.

 

I am planning on sending the following to them:

 

 

I am writing Further to my letter to yourselves dated 29th February 2008 which was sent recorded delivery and signed for by yourselves on the 3rd of March 2008 (copy attached).

 

In my previous letter I drew your attention to the OFT Debt Collection Guidance which states that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970”.

 

In light of the fact that I have not received any written communication from yourselves providing the required evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act I am shocked that you have ignored the OFT guidelines and continued to telephone me everyday this week (a log is being kept and will be produced should further action be required).

 

Take notice that I will only communicate with yourselves in writing and if you continue to telephone me I will treat this as Harassment as detailed in section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and will accordingly submitted complaints to Oftel, the FOS and Trading Standards.

 

I await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that no further contact will be made concerning the above account after that last letter.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

 

 

 

Can anyone suggest any amendments I should make?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still receiving calls and letters from these idiots.

Have logged complaints with the OFT and TS who advised me to call CSL and tell them so.

CSL's reply was that it is government money and therefore I have to pay it back proceeding to tell me next step is to send someone round to have a face to face chat (let me know when and I'll invite the police to the party!) and effectively that the Statute of limitations act does not apply and that I am a thief

- oh yeah in whos court!!!:evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical DCA tactics :rolleyes:

 

What date did you last have a payment from the student loans company?

 

When did you last aknowledge the alledged debt in writting either with a defferment form or letter?

 

DON'T speak to them on the phone, writting only, and if they continue to call, make a note of dates, times and transcript each call. Then send them the Harassment by telephone letter and complain to your Trading Standards. Links below:

 

Trading Standards Central - Trading Standards and Consumer Protection information for the UK

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/37006-harassment-telephone-response-letter.html#post290644

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last payment was prob made in 2001 so well outside the 6 years. I have already complained to consumer direct who have passed the deatils onto both my areas trading standards and CSL's and i am already logginfg the calls ready to pass on if needed. Will send the harassment letter today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

CSL have now given up but the account has been passed on to Scotcall :-x

 

I presume the next step is to send them a letter reminding them about the letter sent to CSL (enclosing a copy in case they forgot to include it in the file they passed on) and re-iterating the fact that it is statute barred?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the letter I intend to send to Scotcall, does anyone have any amendment suggestions?

 

I am writing in response to your letter dated 11th May 2008

 

I wrote a letter to CSL (the company previously trying to collect on this account) on the 29th February 2008 which was sent recorded delivery and signed for by CSL on the 3rd of March 2008 (copy attached). This letter informed CSL and their client – The Student Loans Company – that the account was Statute Barred 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."

In this letter I drew their attention to the OFT Debt Collection Guidance which states that "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".

In a subsequent letter to CSL (attached) dated 12th March 2008 (again sent by recorded delivery and signed for) I reminded them of that the debt was statute barred and that if they continued to attempt collection they would be in breach of the OFT guidelines for debt collection and that further more I would consider continued contact from themselves (except to provide the required evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) acts of Harassment and would report them to the relevant regulatory bodies.

In light of this I am shocked that you have contacted me in relation to this account. I would like to re-iterate to yourselves that the last payment of this alleged debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time and as such . 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.

In addition you should inform the Student Loans Company that this account is Statute Barred under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5.

Take notice that I will only communicate with yourselves in writing and that if you contact me by telephone or in writing with the intent to pursue this account I will treat this as Harassment as detailed in section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and will accordingly submit complaints to Ofcom, the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards.

I await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that no further contact will be made concerning the above account after that last letter.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just being the Devil's Advocate here pblackie

...But when U originally took out your SL, wasn't there a proviso that U agreed to inform SLC of Changes of Address etc??...:confused:

If U hadn't, nor had U asked for the repayments to be deferred, could it be that Sect 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 MAY apply

...Thus extending the 6 year time period??...:confused:

Limitation Act 1980 (s32)

 

 

...:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did notify them of a change of address around 1999/2000 but they never contacted me at the new address. Several years later I moved again and this is now the address they are contacting me at. I never tried to hide my move they just never wrote to me at the new address that I had given them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Failing to tell SLC about change of address has nothing to do with whether the loan is statute barred.

It's open to SLC to get a CCJ by delivering the claim to your last known address, entering Judgment in default, then enforcing when they find you

I am a lawyer, but I am an academic lawyer. I do not practice as a barrister or solicitor. You should consult a practising Solicitor BEFORE taking any Court or other action

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So, Scotcall have returned the account to SLC and I have received the attached letter from them.

 

I am going to send the following to them, can anyone think of any amendments I should make?

 

You have contacted me 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 also point out that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that "it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period".

 

The last payment of this alleged 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.

 

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".

 

I have written to CSL and Scotcall, both companies working on your behalf, informing them that this account is statute barred and I am sure that as they passed the account back to yourselves that they have made you aware of this. In light of the above be warned that if you continue to pursue me for this account I will lodge a Harassment complaint with the OFT.

 

I await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that no further contact will be made concerning the above account after that last letter.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Letter from Student loans.PDF

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter looks fine to me.

 

Report SLC to Trading Standards and the OFT for breaching OFT guidlines by suggesting you pay by credit card:

 

Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals

b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further

borrowing or to extend their borrowing

 

You've already covered the SB breaches in your letter...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Has there been anything further on this matter?

 

It was web searches regarding the statute and S.L.C that brought me to this forum in the first place.

 

I have an old style loan (from 1992) & had been abroad for many years since the late 90's. Had contacted SLC when I moved overseas, never heard anything from them.

 

Returned to UK c.2005 and even by then the alleged loan was outside the statute timeline, didnt hear anything from them... and now recently - almost 10 years since my last contact with them - a letter has arrived regarding an alleged outstanding amount. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...