Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • going nowhere then. well if you've not been simply doing it to look the big cheese to your mates, you need to address why you are doing it. if its to impress your mates then simply stop being an idiot eh? , learn from it and go live your life . dx
    • Yes only with dwf. The first letter I received was explaining that I have not responded to the first letter they sent which I did not receive at all  then the second letter came, they said again saying we have not heard from you we are extending this another 14 days but at that point a couple of days before I called them on the phone saying I have received this and supposedly i owe money for stolen goods and that I need to see the breakdown which they then emailed to me dwf said this was what we were trying to send to you at first and I told them we have not received your first letter only one asking for demand of payment. On my second call to them I asked can you list the things that I have supposedly stole to which they replied “we normally have this on file but I can’t seem to find this on your file”   
    • oh well, at least your eign of terror is over now. so no contact directly since from/to sainsbury's. everything since has only been with DWF?
    • Replying to above  this was on the day that two store detectives approached me and my friend and took us into the back room and spoke to us when they explained they have been watching
    • as my learned friend above...and.. sadly because just like DCA's and initially yourself in this case, you believed they have some magical powers ...they DON'T. 85% of people blindly pay DCA's cause they know no better and think they are BAILIFFS. only the RETAILER can ever do court and none have done this on a silly member of joe public that did something stupid since the infamous 2012 Oxford case on retail loss. BAILIFFS can only ever be involved after you've been to court and lost a CCJ, fat chance re above... and anyway, no BAILIFF has any right of forced entry anyway on consumer debts even with a judgement so......... stop panicking and thinking everything that doesn't apply.. forget about them but p'haps a confidential GP visit might be a very good move... what slightly concerns me more here is:  who are 'them' that told you they'd reviewed a week of CCTV and come up with several shoplifting instances over that time amounting to the above? have you directly contacted or had contact from Sainsbury's? and know they HAVE done this? or is this DWF willy waving and they tricked you into  admitting several previous successful thefts... this is not the norm...  dx      
  • 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

SLC Keep Chasing Statute Barred Debt - Please Help!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5501 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, please can you help? I took out 2 loans total £1,000, and graduated in 1994, did not defer and I had no communication with SLC, until I received a letter from a DCA in 2004, demanding full payment of balance £2,300. I then a received a solicitors letter, then a deferment form from SLC, which I completed and returned to them. I then spoke to Money Advice Trust who said the debt is statute barred and they gave me a template letter to send to SLC (saying it’s statute barred and that the OFT say it is unfair/an offence to mislead the debtor that they should have to pay, if they have heard nothing during the relevant limitation period). The SLC completely ignored this and my request for deferment, other than to say that as I had completed the deferment form, I acknowledge the debt and that's when the course of action begins. I think they sent me the deferment form as a trick to get me to acknowledge the debt, but I've been told that what matters is that I did not acknowledge the debt during the relevant limitation period, several years ago.

 

Over the last five years I have had 40 letters, sent by 3 DCA's, a solicitor, Smith Lawson and SLC, who continue to threaten the possibility of legal action, possible bailiffs and a possible CCJ, if I don't pay the balance (which now stands at £2,500 - although the balance requested goes up and down from £1,900 to £4,000 - inc interest and admin charges)! They sent me a copy of my original credit agreement and the signature page is readable, but the second page with further terms and conditions is black, fuzzy and illegible! The Money Advice Trust just told me to keep replying with versions of their template letter, which I have done, but the SLC ignore them and continue to badger me for full payment.

 

I recently discovered that from 2008 the Financial Ombudsmen is now responsible for these old style loans provided there was some course of action being undertaken by SLC in 2008. I contacted the FO's office who said to get a final letter from SLC and if it's unsatisfactory to send in a complaint form to them. The SLC sent back a demand for payment, saying that it is not statute barred, because the cause of action began in 2004 when I contacted them to defer payments. I received another one this week saying that my account is pending issue of a Court Order and I have 7 days to reply!

 

I phoned the Money Advice Trust and they said it might be best to do nothing and wait for it to go to court and then put in a statute barred defence, to force an end to it! They said that if I choose to complain to the Financial Ombudsman, then I first need to make every effort to give the SLC the chance to sort it out first, so I now need to give the SLC much more detail about the dates of the relevant limitation period, etc. I have never earned enough in any one tax year to be eligible to may repayments. I am not working, (my partner works) and I am disabled (but not in receipt of any benefits) and I was under 40 when I took out the loans and I am now 50+. The worry of this is making me ill (I am on pain killers for my disability and on anti-depressants). Please can someone help with what I need to do/say next? Thanks a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...