Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
    • Sleep apnoea: used to require the condition  to be “completely” controlled Sometime before June 2013 DVLA changed it to "adequately" controlled. I have to disagree with MitM regarding the effect of informing DVLA and S.88 A diagnosis of sleep apnoea doesn't mean a licence wont be granted, and, indeed, here it was. If the father sought medical advice (did he?) : this is precisely where S.88 applies https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64edcf3a13ae1500116e2f5d/inf1886-can-i-drive-while-my-application-is-with-dvla.pdf p.4 for “new medical condition” It is shakier ground if the opinion of a healthcare professional wasn’t sought. in that case it is on the driver to state they believed they met the medical standard to drive. However, the fact the licence was then later granted can be used to be persuasive that the driver’s belief they met the standard was correct. What was the other condition? And, just to confirm, at no point did DVLA say the licence was revoked / application refused? I’d be asking DVLA Drivers’ Medical Group why they believe S.88 doesn’t apply. S.88 only applies for the UK, incidentally. If your licence has expired and you meet the conditions for S.88 you can drive in the U.K., but not outside the U.K. 
    • So you think not pay until DN then pay something to the oc to delay selling to dcas?    then go from there? 
    • think about it, if you don't pay the full amount, what more can they do , default you  they've already registered a default notice by that point.  why have you got to await sale to a DCA.... for what?  
  • 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

Letter from the 'Vice President' Abbey credit card


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5287 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

Is there any evidence to say they are the front and back of the same doc?

 

As i agree with cerberusalert.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh dear - encouraging a debtor to take on further credit is against the OFT Guidance, though MBNA often do it. Don't be surprised to receive 'pre-approved' card and loan offers from various companies that will all ultimately resolve to MBNA.

 

Beat me to it, breach OFT guidelines - but they don't care as long as they get their pound of flesh.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then so can u see in any way that there would be a link between the front and back of the document.

 

This may be if you hold the reply up to the light and see if u can see original writing threw the t+cs or the t+cs threw the application form.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

keep the postcard just in case you need it later on , its rubbish to suggest that they will visit your home. :mad:

 

Visit My Arse !

 

Notts

As a great man once said " All Men Can Fly But Some Only in One Direction"

 

Notts

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Received the following letter from Abbey (attachment 8sept) with enclosures.

 

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept2.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept3.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept4.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept5.jpg

 

a. "A copy of your executed agreement" - this is the same document I have had previously ie. my application form with a quarter page of alleged terms and conditions on the back.(attachments 8sept2/8sept3)

 

b. "Your up to date terms and conditions"- not sure if these are relevant as my understanding is there needs to be one signed document 'within the four corners' . I have highlighted the reference to £12 charge which I think confirms these are new terms. Also section 11 refered to on the front page of my application form does not correspond with section 11 of the 'new terms'. (attachments 8sept4/8sept5)

 

c. "A copy of your most recent statement (which shows the state of your account) which has been signed by us" - As it says they have included a statement dated 19 Aug. with interest and penalties still racking up and signed by someone.

 

Since the last correspondence on 26 June I have done nothing and just waited for their next move. It would appear that this response is an attempt to show compliance of my S78 request. Can someone please advise what I need to do next, can I challenge the validity of the 'application form'?

 

Having re-checked my file I see the last correspondence was from Optima legal on 10 July threatening a charging order if I did not come to an arrangement. I did not respond to their threat.

 

greatburdon

Edited by greatburdon
optima
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a ral issue that needs to be brought to peoples' attention regarding companies offering "new credit" (i.e. loans, new credit cards etc).

 

This is, in my view, a real [problem].

 

If you take out a new card/loan (i.e. post 2007) these companies will have better/watertight documentation which you will sign and become bound to. They then "lend" you the money to "pay off the old debt" (whcih is just an accounting entry for them) but, CRUCIALLY, they now have you committed via a NEW ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT. They have basically ensured THEY are in a much better position - but you, the debtor, are worse off.

 

It always struck me as odd that people with credit card bills (essentaily unsecured debt, and unenforceable in many cases) would take out new loans, secured on their homes, to pay off unsecured debt. You have just taken an unsecured debt and turned it into a secured debt - and secured on your house. Absolutely barking, in my opinion.

 

Anway, just picking up on that part of the thread dealing with the offer of new credit by existing creditors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received further letter today chasing overdue payments or else court action may be taken or the account passed to a DCA.

 

I assume that activity has started again due to their belief of compliance.

 

Should I challenge their letters or ignore and wait for the threats to materialise?

 

greatburdon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the account in dispute letter available here:

 

The Consumer Forums - Debt collectors

 

Amend to suit, send recorded keeping a copy with your postal receipt, print do not sign and good luck.

 

Please report them to TS and the OFT for chasing an account when it's in clear dispute ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest offering fron Abbey...

 

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey14sept.jpg

 

 

As expected as they now consider that they have complied by sending the docs. in post #36 the collection/threat letters have started again in ernest.

 

I assume a response along the lines of I dispute the validity of the information sent is in order?

 

greatburdon

Link to post
Share on other sites

the letter in post 42 is Total BS.

 

A creditor can only apply for a changing order if a debtor fails to pay a CCJ.

 

In other words they must first obtain a CCJ (if they can get one) the judge would then set payments, if for some reason you failed to pay the set amount to the court, the creditor then could apply for further enforcement and the judge may CONSIDER a charging order against your house.

 

If you pay the CCJ as directed by the court, the creditor is unable to apply for further enforcement

 

This is a threatogram of biblical proportions... i'd compain to the OFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Master Woody

 

I dont want to be awkard but you DO NOT pay the courts u pay the company or private individual and they are ment to give you a recipt for the payment or even pay by a tracable method. EG cheque or standing order.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Received this letter:

 

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8Oct.jpg

 

They state that the account will be written off as a bad debt at the end of this month and then go on with their threats that they will persue several recovery actions.

 

What is the position after it has been written off as a bad debt ?(presumably so they claim tax relief or an insurance pay-out) Does it strengthen my case? ... Seems odd to me.

 

greatburdon

Link to post
Share on other sites

A write off is their INTERNAL term and it does not mean anything to you. it just means, for their own accounting, they treat the debt (as asset to them) as haivng no value. That does NOT stop them selling it or trying to collect on it later.

 

What you need is a (i) full and final settlement (ii) balance written to 0 after any payment you make and (iii) undertaking that no collection efforts will be made in future by them or anyone else (i.e. they will not sell on the debt)

 

Otherwise, a promise to "write it off" is pretty meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...