Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Farage rails and whines about not being allowed on the BBC ... ... but pulls out at the last minute of a BBC Panorama interview special. It was denied it was anything to do with his candidates being outed as misogynists and Putin apologists, or that farage was afraid Nick Robinson might throw some difficult questions at him ... despite farages recent practice at quickly cowering in fear.   It was claimed 'it wasn't in Nigels diary'     Nigel Farage pulls out of BBC interview at last minute amid Hitler row WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK ‘Panorama’ special postponed as Reform UK party faces row over candidate who claimed UK would have been ‘better off’ if it had...   Waaahhhh
    • i'd say put lowells to strict proof of where the payment came from. cant hurt to send SB letter, even if proved not. at least they get your correct address. they'd have to link the old IVA times scale to a payment  these IVA F&F pots (if thats where it came from) most mugs dont even know they are not only taking most of your payments on fees but also creaming money off to supposedly offer F&F's.  funny when the IVA fails or is complete these sums of money in F&F pots never get given back or even mentions... these IVA firm directors esp with regard to knightsbridge and creditfix were fined and struck off more times than Paul Burdell of Link Fame and still managed to continue to scam people.
    • Hi everyone, I received a charge certificate with a charge of £165  in April 2022 however I never received a PCN and NTO before that. I responded by requesting original PCN reissued in the hope of getting discounted rate which was refused however I was offered to pay £110. I received an Order of Recovery in May 2023 and submitted a witness statement on time by email to get the original PCN re-issued. I received a Notice of Enforcement in February 2024 I contacted TEC that I had submitted TE9 on time and they advised me to submit a late witness statement and TE7. I did as advised and also attached the original email and witness statement as proof to show that I had submitted my witness statement on time. The council disputed my late witness statement by saying that I likely received the PCN and that I did not submit a valid late witness statement without specifying why it's not valid. The court refused my late witness statement without giving any reasoning behind their decision (so much for the transparency). This is really outrageous as I did attach the proof of submitting the witness statement on time and it seems like the court just decided without looking at the case files. Can someone please advise me what should I do now? Any help is appreciated. I have attached all the documents below. Documents.pdf
    • Will the real criminals please stand   Biden 🤣GUILTY on all counts    Come September remember Americans don’t like tax dodgers 🤣
    • You of course ignore the fact that Farage actually helped raise £100,000 so that WW11 Veterans could actually attend the celebrations    Meanwhile oh to be in France 🤣  
  • 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

old first national bank loan with old CCJ, now with Link


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3691 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 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

what part of remove all pers details did you not see...

 

removed

 

i'll do them in a minute

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

done

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreement taken out May 1999

CCJ by 1st National - 13-june-2000 sum £4295 [NO POST JUDGEMENTAL INT]

last payment 30/9/2005

I notice Plink are still adding interest even after the date of the CCj - they cant do that

 

you did owe £4295 to 1st national

they have sold the debt

plink would need to go back to court to get claimant change & enforce - no chance!!

 

the statements from PLINK say you made a £5 & a £10 payment 30/9/2005

 

so the debt IS status barred end of.

 

pers I would TOTALLY ignore them unless any court docs arrive.

 

the fact they have used 3 differing spoof DCA's [link by another name]

and that they have known about the CCJ since 30/04/2001

and muted re-issue speaks volumes

 

they have had 13 yrs!! to sort this

they haven't

 

trying to spoof you

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they could add interest as per the terms and conditions of the original agreement, or does the court have to mention that in the judgement?

 

whats the odds of them getting court docs now and being succesful?

 

Link bought the debt in 2005, so they didn't know anything in 2001, yet their 'statement' shows interest from 1999.

CCJs are never statute barred are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the CCJ replaced / negated the terms of the CCA

 

no chance in hell as has been stated several times.

 

Plink are trying to spoof you

 

you need to go away and read about CCJ's and who after 6yrs of non enforcement 'could' enforce them.

 

its 13yrs since the CCJ...no judge would ever allow it

 

never seen one esp with Link and esp as they were not the claimant.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is reading around that has spooked me really by one person telling me that in recent years judges have been enforcing old ccjs without question and that I should be in contact with the DCA to sort it out, but I dont know how credible the site is unlike this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you would contest it

 

the debt would be statute barred

 

which is why Plink wont and haven't done so to date.

 

pers i'd put this to bed now.

 

getting a bit repetitive now

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no not the CCJ, but the debt.

if a CCJ has not been enforced for 6yrs its very rare for judge to so.

 

esp if the owner is not the named claimant.

 

I suggest instead of going round in circles go read the national debt line CCJ helpsheet or Q&A section

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...