Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • and it will be also now written off under age related criteria anyway.
    • @dx100ukThanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe consequences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points? @Man in the middleI've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
    • Been perusing the actual figures on the polls above wondering where the '16% claimed for deform comes from? I understand that there are 'weighted' end results based on secret calculations ...   Probably going to repeat this later, but remember that the ukip/brexit/reform/deform party has ALWAYS had poll speculation FAR better than their actual  performance at elections - by large margins. SO: The labor and Tory votes come largely from simply the people who say they will vote for them - sorted Lab 43% Tory 20%, with maybe another small 1-2% coming from the weightings of the 'not sures' Greens largely get what is declared from 'other' , although with another declared green bit from the 'pressed' question   So as the share of the voting displayed in 'other' granted to reform/deform is around 11%, where does the '16% too often being reported come from? Seems that reform has been granted as beneficiary of effectively ALL the don't knows and wont says, who when pressed didn't actually declare for someone else ... effectively adding 40%+ to their reported polling % - rather strange given their consistent under-performance compared to polling - or perhaps that is the cause of the higher rating eh?   Now I admit the possibility (probability?) of wingers being ashamed of declaring their support for the yuckey lemon end of the spectrum ... but surely  that should affect the 'Torys as well? Maybe the statisticians have simply weighted in that deform wingers are simply more likely to lie?   But - without 'weightings' and assumptions that faragits will get everything that isnt declared as a definite and unequivocal 'not that Piers Morgan' - reform is on around 11% it seems.   Add to that the history of polling a lot less than the hype - and the simple fact that faragit wingers seem to be spread across the country (presumably skulking in their moms spare room despite being 45+) and greens and lib dems seem to be community minded - I think two seats will be an epic result for farage. Hardly the opposition - far more raving wingnut party.   and importantly - Has farage got a home in clacton yet?
    • "as I have no tools available to merge documents, unless you can suggest any free ones that will perform offline merges without watermarking" (which you don't) ... but ok please upload the documents and we'll go from there
  • Our picks

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

Student loans


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5527 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

Just got this in my email:

 

"

Student loans to go on credit reports

 

The Student Loans Company (SLC) is set to get more aggressive with people who regularly miss repayments on their outstanding loans.

Until now, student loans have not appeared on credit files, mainly because the SLC does not have the specific consent of all students to send payment history information to the agencies, one of the basic requirements of sharing account performance data.

The SLC is to send letters to an estimated 60,000 borrowers considered as consistent ‘bad payers’, advising them that they have 28 days to bring their accounts into line. Anyone who fails to respond will be deemed to be in default. Defaults can be registered without the consent of borrowers, so the SLC has found a way to use credit reference agencies as a means of pressure to aid collection attempts.

This new move is likely only to affect those who took out student loans prior to 1998 and the SLC estimates that 30,000 people could see their credit ratings damaged. Defaults stay on credit files for a period of six years and can seriously damage an individual's hopes of getting other lines of credit, such as mortgages or personal loans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the principal of law was that they could not apply something like this retrospectively - i have at no stage agreed in any of my SLC agreements for them to share date with or look at my credit file.

Veester

 

"Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful." -- Joshua J. Marine‏ ;)

 

Better than the truth itself is truthful living.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting, if they want the student loans to be treated the same as 'normal' loans they will have to allow them to be considered in BR or DROs!

 

I owe a few grand on half a dozen student loans, and don't have to pay anything off unless i am earning over 25K, will I be considered as a bad payer if i keep defering because i earn less?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a spare 30 minutes last night so went SLC baiting!!!

 

They have been ringing me daily for months but we just ignore them. I have been paying every month what I can afford but they want me to fill out an I&E form so that they can check and challenge it!!! I told the girl my total debt and what percentage of that was SLC I then allocated that percentage of my money left over and told her that figure. She just kept saying 'but who has authorised that percentage'.....I think pro rata was lost on her!!! Needless to say I won't be filling out her form unless a judge requires me too!

 

Anyway I asked her where I had signed to say that SLC could share my data with CRA's and she said it was on my agreement. I pointed out that I had already SAR'd them and had my agreements in front of me and there was nothing on them. She then said that the CCA changed in 2006 so they could do it. I pointed out that my pre-1998 agreements were covered by the CCA 1974 so that didn't apply. She kept saying that they had sent stuff out changing the contract to allow them to do it. I told her that nothing had arrived and it would be unlawful to share my data. After about 5 minutes of her trying every avenue but finding some big road blocks at the end of each she then declared that she had just moved offices and hadn't had time to unpack her stuff, and the info she needed was in a box somewhere. She said when she found it she would send a copy out.........I won't holding my breath!!

 

It would appear that they are trying their luck with this and if pushed haven't got any legal back-up so just keep challenging them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a spare 30 minutes last night so went SLC baiting!!!

 

They have been ringing me daily for months but we just ignore them. I have been paying every month what I can afford but they want me to fill out an I&E form so that they can check and challenge it!!! I told the girl my total debt and what percentage of that was SLC I then allocated that percentage of my money left over and told her that figure. She just kept saying 'but who has authorised that percentage'.....I think pro rata was lost on her!!! Needless to say I won't be filling out her form unless a judge requires me too!

 

Anyway I asked her where I had signed to say that SLC could share my data with CRA's and she said it was on my agreement. I pointed out that I had already SAR'd them and had my agreements in front of me and there was nothing on them. She then said that the CCA changed in 2006 so they could do it. I pointed out that my pre-1998 agreements were covered by the CCA 1974 so that didn't apply. She kept saying that they had sent stuff out changing the contract to allow them to do it. I told her that nothing had arrived and it would be unlawful to share my data. After about 5 minutes of her trying every avenue but finding some big road blocks at the end of each she then declared that she had just moved offices and hadn't had time to unpack her stuff, and the info she needed was in a box somewhere. She said when she found it she would send a copy out.........I won't holding my breath!!

 

It would appear that they are trying their luck with this and if pushed haven't got any legal back-up so just keep challenging them.

 

I have just check my agreement/s from 1992/93/94.

Although they have now been written off under section 12, no where does it state they are entitled to share information with CRA or anybody else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All.

Since leaving University in 1996 I have been in debt and have finally managed to clean up my credit file and am waiting for some old defaults to be removed because of the Six year clause.

 

However, I have just recieved a letter from The Student Loans Company and this is one debt that I had not serviced and in total amounts to £5000. Do not get me wrong, I have not ran away from them but I have until now not had any contact with them since around 2001 and I have had various sadness since that period when my Mother died very young and had children - therefore as they had never contacted me I never contacted them.

 

The Letter states that they want £5000 within the next 28 days from the date of the letter or they intend to mar my Credit File with a default, this is the last thing I need as I am just in the process of buying my first house with my wife (whom does not earn and looks after our two children) as her Father is helping us with the deposit.

 

Question is, I took this loan in 1993 and not heard from them since 2001/2002 - Is this now statute barred and if so do they still have the right to mark my credit file with a default and should I either

 

1 - Arrange to pay what I can afford on a monthly basis in order to get the mortgage

2 - Write a Statute barred letter and ensure that they do not mark my credit file

3 - Ignore the situation

 

Any help would be gratefully recieved

 

user_online.gif [email=abuse@moneysavingexpert.com?subject=Reporting post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=21106613]report.gif[/email] post_thanks.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting this matter aside- has anyone noticed that the interest rate that SLC apply to our loans is governed by the Retail Price Index (check your agreements) and that RPI is now negative - we are now in deflation)

 

This means that SLC will soon have to start paying US!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that the SLC are threatening to default people where loans are clearly statute barred.

 

Student Loan Company Default Letter

 

But then the SLC have never had a clear grasp of the law, let alone anything else.:rolleyes:

Edited by fermi
remove the stupid auto link. :P

[SIZE=2][COLOR=SeaGreen][FONT=Verdana][URL="http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/"][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All.

Since leaving University in 1996 I have been in debt and have finally managed to clean up my credit file and am waiting for some old defaults to be removed because of the Six year clause.

 

However, I have just recieved a letter from The Student Loans Company and this is one debt that I had not serviced and in total amounts to £5000. Do not get me wrong, I have not ran away from them but I have until now not had any contact with them since around 2001 and I have had various sadness since that period when my Mother died very young and had children - therefore as they had never contacted me I never contacted them.

 

The Letter states that they want £5000 within the next 28 days from the date of the letter or they intend to mar my Credit File with a default, this is the last thing I need as I am just in the process of buying my first house with my wife (whom does not earn and looks after our two children) as her Father is helping us with the deposit.

 

Question is, I took this loan in 1993 and not heard from them since 2001/2002 - Is this now statute barred and if so do they still have the right to mark my credit file with a default and should I either

 

1 - Arrange to pay what I can afford on a monthly basis in order to get the mortgage

2 - Write a Statute barred letter and ensure that they do not mark my credit file

3 - Ignore the situation

 

Any help would be gratefully recieved

 

user_online.gifreport.gifpost_thanks.gif

 

Right I am no expert on this matter but will pass on what I was told regard SLC.

 

The statue barred limitation does not apply to the newer (morgage type) loans, think it is post 1998, so this would not apply in your case.

 

If you have not made contact, made payment or acknowleged the debt since 2001/2002, then the statue barred limitation should apply, but if you have defered payments from that date, this would effect this claim. The 6 year limit starts from your last payment, contact or acknowlegemnt of the debt.

 

Hope this is of help

Alf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...