Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

Helllppp - Honours Student Loans


xray2
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5445 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 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi 42man

 

Thanks for taking time to look at this case.

 

The amended particulars of claim that have been filed (64 days later than ordered at the previous hearing) relate to student loans dated 1995, 1996 and 1997 allegedly sold by Student Loans Company to Honours Student Loans in in 1999.

 

I put HSL to strict proof before the last hearing and all they have provided so far is poor photocopies and blank templates "of the sort of notices that we send in these instances." After 2 SARs we are still short of several documents, including any notice of assignment.

 

So far I've been served with three default notices for the same debt. When I questioned this they said they can serve as many as they want and just tear up the one before.

 

They've lumped costs and charges into the amount and continue to charge interest on the full sum.

 

The total balance owed goes up and down randomly. There are also issues with the credit agreements, supplied with the first particulars of claim as photocopies without SLC signatures, which, after the judges comments, suddenly became photocopies with SLC signatures but with dates that couldn't possibly tally with the dates of my signatures.

 

Any comments would be gratefully recieved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read of this link - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/students/191527-statute-barred-student-loan.html

 

I presume this is the old style of student loan ?and please correct me if i'm wrong, there is a clear gap of 6 years on this where you have not made a payment ? .....then surely this is statute barred ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

42man, thanks for your continued interest in this. The loans are old style mortgage type. HSL have not really changed their particulars of claim, so my original defense is still relevant.

 

Just revisited the paperwork and find that they have sent me 7 default notices for this debt, 1 of which is in dollars ($) ! Surely this cannot be legal. How many default notices can they issue on one debt.

 

Thanks everyone for your comments and support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

I am putting together my defense and found something i think may be very significant. HSL have terminated the credit agreement twice in a 2 year period. i realise that once terminated an agreement can't be terminated again, but not sure quite how this impacts on the case. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all

well, we've had the preliminary hearing, and the judge refused to strike out, despite all of the above and the fact that they were 90 days out of time ordered by the judge at the previous hearing. Judge said he couldn't strike out because the previous judge hadn't included that as a sanction in the order that was ignored. He just went ahead with the draft directions submitted by the claimant.

 

Sorry to keep asking advice on this one, but does anyone know if we can appeal against what happens in a preliminary hearing, or do we have grounds to apply separately to have it struck out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...