Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Andy111
      General question about CCJ's if not enforced or extended after 6 years

      By Andy111 · Posted

      Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject.   My original  CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  So at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them.   Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.  
    • dx100uk
      Moneybarn - Termination Received, no default received and only missed 3 payments.

      By dx100uk · Posted

      whats the court claimform for? return of goods order? please complete this:  
    • dx100uk
      Caught shoplifting Sainsbury's but they also detained and kept M&S stolen goods

      By dx100uk · Posted

      std DWF letter. typically £157 something. lots of them here already doesn't say WILL anything. read it properly dx  
    • honeybee13
      Caught shoplifting Sainsbury's but they also detained and kept M&S stolen goods

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      Have you read our upload guide [click on the word] for advice on how to post up documents? Pdf files are best, jpegs won't be accepted. HB
    • honeybee13
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      Sunak's already had enough of travelling like the little people. Rishi Sunak flies back from Devon by helicopter after gushing about 'great' train travel - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Rishi Sunak told broadcasters: 'The train was great, I've been taking lots of pictures and videos' - but he skipped the 3-hour, £55 train home in favour of...  

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

overdone

By overdone
in Swift Advances

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4945 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

overdone

overdone

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hi, In Feb 2009 I took Swift to court and won a time order and today i went back and have won a temporary reduction in interest rates despite swift claiming all sorts of poverty.

I am considering revisiting court to recover charges they have piled on my account as my opinion is that if they had helped me in the firts place I wouldn't have incurred charges. To apply for a time order you must get a default letter which means missing two payments. Swift's contract seems geared to deter anyone from applying for a time order by applying these charges at the default letter point.

Wish me luck

Brilliant news. Well done. Can you start a Swift forum thread, post up some docs and help give us some more info. It will help others on here and they can give you some support too.

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

overdone

overdone

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Treasury Select Committee

 

Is anyone watching this ...John Mann and John Mcfall is giving the FSA some stick:grin::wink:

 

sparkie

The FSA are always being criticised but they never move. Waste of time.

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sweetjane

sweetjane

Posted
Posted

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (which was fully implemented on 1 October 2008) updates and amends CCA 1974: "Lenders have to provide regular statements during the lifetime of the debt - this includes a breakdown of the balance, clearly stating interest payments and any default charges."

So since October last year Swift customers should have been getting full statements of account. When I queried it they said they haven't been previously obliged (presumably referring to pre-October 2008) but they will send one on the anniversary of the loan. If you haven't had one and your "anniversary" has passed since October, demand one now quoting the Act.

When we first requested one we were sent a list of payments and the second time a redemption statement - their staff have no idea. Anyone with a running account with Swift needs to know exactly what the alleged debt is. This is why the redemption statements come as such a shock to people - we have no idea how our "loan" is being cranked up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
andrew1

andrew1

Posted
Posted
The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (which was fully implemented on 1 October 2008) updates and amends CCA 1974: "Lenders have to provide regular statements during the lifetime of the debt - this includes a breakdown of the balance, clearly stating interest payments and any default charges."

So since October last year Swift customers should have been getting full statements of account. When I queried it they said they haven't been previously obliged (presumably referring to pre-October 2008) but they will send one on the anniversary of the loan. If you haven't had one and your "anniversary" has passed since October, demand one now quoting the Act.

When we first requested one we were sent a list of payments and the second time a redemption statement - their staff have no idea. Anyone with a running account with Swift needs to know exactly what the alleged debt is. This is why the redemption statements come as such a shock to people - we have no idea how our "loan" is being cranked up.

 

you have to put a gap at the end of 200 6 so you don't get smilies! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
landy_alert

landy_alert

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi sweetjane:)

 

The cheeky swines - sending a redemption statement instead of a statement of your account -not only are they complete idiots, but clever ones at that (if that's not a contradiction:eek:) as they charged us £65 twice for two redemption statements when we were about to repay them. If you haven't asked specifically for a redemption statement you should tell them so and make sure they don't charge you for their (deliberate) mistake!

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

Edited by landy_alert
missed a bit!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sparkie1723

Sparkie1723

Posted
Posted
Well done Sparkie. I bet the guidance to the CAG site has been an eye opener for the TSC! I have much faith in the course of action you have managed to achieve.

 

Hi Matey

That is IF they read the forum.......we will never lnow really:idea:

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites
Swift Eater

Swift Eater

Posted
Posted

Some brilliant guidance on here, however with SWIFT nothing has prooved sucsessfull.

I await in antisipation as I will be froced to repay the redemption figure or £47K out of a £49K loan after repaying over £39K now.

I will challange some charges, however that will only result in less then £1K over the pieriod.

Should this be anyone want to proove that continue to challange these ruthless lenders will deliver results I are all ears.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Swift Eater

Swift Eater

Posted
Posted

Hi overdone I have a full redemption statement with a valid date.

Will be contesting all charges.

Worst thing I ever done was to deal with SWIFT ADVANCES

Still will follow this thread and wish every one the very best on getting justice ref charges and lending rates

 

Just think I could lend some old dear £1000 have it secured on her property and increase the intrest rate to 1000% a day and get possession of her property and no one can do oting about it ?

 

This is a tactick that is used by lenders and it is leagal !

 

Sorry to put a damper on this but I are been real ......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smarterchick

Smarterchick

Posted
Posted
Hi overdone I have a full redemption statement with a valid date.

Will be contesting all charges.

Worst thing I ever done was to deal with SWIFT ADVANCES

Still will follow this thread and wish every one the very best on getting justice ref charges and lending rates

 

Just think I could lend some old dear £1000 have it secured on her property and increase the intrest rate to 1000% a day and get possession of her property and no one can do oting about it ?

 

This is a tactick that is used by lenders and it is leagal !

 

Sorry to put a damper on this but I are been real ......

 

 

err? Maybe not Swift Eater - there's such a thing as an 'extortionate credit bargain' you'd be stuffed matey :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
overdone

overdone

Posted
  • Author
Posted
err? Maybe not Swift Eater - there's such a thing as an 'extortionate credit bargain' you'd be stuffed matey :-D

I think it is max 40% in this country.

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
overdone

overdone

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think it is max 40% in this country.

That said, if you look at some of the early resettlement charges and someone does settle early, it is still shocking.

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smarterchick

Smarterchick

Posted
Posted
Not realy going to do that, 1000% and secured on property.

 

From what I can see is we all have unregulated agreements falling outside of any CCA.

 

It is a misconception that just because the agreement exceeds 25k on agreements pre Apr 2007 that they are unregulated agreements falling outside the CCA -take a look here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within.html

Its a long thread but the first 4 pages will give you the jist.

 

However, multiple agreements are hanging on a case going to appeal in October called Heath vs Southern Pacific.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Swift Eater

Swift Eater

Posted
Posted

Smarterchick

 

Indeed you are correct, are you saying that a multiple agreement over £25K is regulated ?

This is a grey area as over £25K is unregulated and multiple is regulated ?

Hope we all do get Justice.

Kinds regards ( this thread has gone slow )

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smarterchick

Smarterchick

Posted
Posted
Smarterchick

 

Indeed you are correct, are you saying that a multiple agreement over £25K is regulated ?

This is a grey area as over £25K is unregulated and multiple is regulated ?

Hope we all do get Justice.

Kinds regards ( this thread has gone slow )

 

I'm saying ANY loan can be regulated as per the thread I posted above if the constituant parts are separate categories of credit each of which are under £25k ie: £40k loan, part cash under £25k Unrestricted Use . older loan paid off from proceedings by new loan company - restricted use..etc.

 

If you had 2 loans paid off under 25k but falling under 1 category of credit (both Restricted Use) which combined exceed 25k, that combined amount would remain unregulated, but the cash regulated. It begs the question though as to whether the whole agreement is therefore unenforceable as it is not correctly executed. Remember though, this only relates to loans pre Apr 2007 after which the new CCA comes into play where the courts alone can decide the unenforcability whereas earlier loans can rely soley on the '74 Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Swift Eater

Swift Eater

Posted
Posted (edited)

You see fowks we must pay attention to our argreements. I will be repaying £48K soon to swift for a 49K loan after repaying over £39K.

Within this company there are many loop holes what this company has used to there advantage. Example the funding rates, ( they rise when rates increase and never decline when rates come down ) these tackticks are unfair and can be seen as **edit** activities used for fainancial gain.

What Swft doe not know is that there business is been scrutinised by profisional business men who have information to sugesst unfair lending with acusations close to been money lender pracisies. The result of these findings will cause 1000s of agreements of swifts to be questioned and wrightfully be re calculated and the difference be compensated.

Swift are big fish in comparrison to us consumers, but as they are been taken on by equal powers they will become less than equal as there morral high standing will be diminished in the process.

The morral goes what goes around comes around.

Swifteater

Edited by citizenB
new, be careful with allegations :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4945 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...