Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
    • cause like you said in post one, 99% of people think these are FINES (it now reads charge). and wet themselves and cough up. they are not, they are speculative invoices because the driver supposedly broke some imaginary contract by driving onto privately owned land which said owner may or may not have signed some 99% fake contract with a private parking co years ago, thats already expired or has not been renewed or annually paid to employ them 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

1990 student loan problem


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5431 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

I posted this on the"have you received threatening demands..." thread and it was advised to start my own thread.

 

I've just started receiving letters from a debt collection agency regarding my student loan I took out in 1990 whilst at uni. To the best of my memory I defered paying this twice as I was not earning enough after I graduated, then started paying if off monthly ( around 1995 and it took me about 2 years to clear). However this was 14 years ago so I have no records to prove this! ( I have changed banks and moved address many multiple times including a year out of the country..). From reading this forum I presume it will be a case of the debt being statute barred and letter m should be sent to the vultures ( opps sorry debt collection agency). However I have received a new letter today from the student loans company themselves. It is a notice of default sums and they are charging me a trace agent charge? This is dated 12 june 2009. could someone advise me what to do with this? As I said I am almost positive I paid off my loan in 1995/96 but have absolutely no way of proving this.

 

hope someone can help

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks clemma, I'm just doing the letter to the dca now, and will send to the student loans company as well. That deals with the supposed debt, but what about this new trace agent charge of £16.68 dated 12 june 2009? I know it's a tiny amount and I could pay it easily but it's the principle of paying them for something they never should have charged me! I really am sure I paid the debt off when I had to. Thinking about it last night as I was trying to sleep, I'm sure it was done via the company I was working for and there was a line underneath my tax and nic's line saying student loan.. Unfortunately I just checked all my old payslips and I haven't got any before 2000 so there again I have no proof I paid :o(

Link to post
Share on other sites

As cerberusalert said ;) It's entirely up to them to prove you owe anything. Once that SB letter has been sent they are not to contact you again, or harass you for payment. If they do, come back here, and someone will advise you of your next step (usually it is just to re-send the SB letter with a covering note).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok letters sent :o) lets see what those lovely people at buchanan clark + wells say....

and is it just me or does it look totally unproffesional that they have their name variously capitalised and all in lower case through out their letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

:D the SLC tend to try it on once and then bin it

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D the SLC tend to try it on once and then bin it

 

ida x

 

well they just sent me a lovely letter saying they will continue to seek payment and all the sb ( if correct) does is stop them from obtaining a court judgment against me. ummm how else are they going to try and make me pay a debt I have already paid? perhaps i ought to take them up on their oh so kind offer of calling them on a 070 number to arrange a voluntary repayment scheme.... ;o)

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they just sent me a lovely letter saying they will continue to seek payment and all the sb ( if correct) does is stop them from obtaining a court judgment against me. ummm how else are they going to try and make me pay a debt I have already paid? perhaps i ought to take them up on their oh so kind offer of calling them on a 070 number to arrange a voluntary repayment scheme.... ;o)

 

Send them this and report them to the oft and trading standards once you tell them it sb they MUST STOP ALL COLLECTION ACTIVITY .

 

 

(Address)

 

(Date)

 

Dear Sir / Madam

 

For the purposes of clarity and the avoidance of doubt, please take careful note of the following :

 

1. This letter is sent to you to avoid any “miscommunication” and to give an unequivocal statement of intent.

 

2. This letter does not acknowledge any debt owed to you or your affiliates, agents, owners or otherwise.

 

3. I understand this debt was last acknowledged over 6 years ago and falls within the remit of s.5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (which, in case you need reminding, states that an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after 6 years from the date on which the cause of action occurred).

 

4. I wrote to your company on (XXXXX) explaining that I had no wish to pay towards a debt that was barred by the Statute Of Limitations Act 1980, this was signed for by your company on (XXXXX)

 

5. I am now of the view that your actions are of pure harrassment and in breach of CPUTR 2008 in line with the Office Of Fair Tradings guidance on debt collection.

 

6. The same guidance states it is unfair to pursue a payment after a debtor has already stated they will not be paying due to it being statute barred. I am informing you once again,that even if the debt were mine, I would not pay it.

 

7. I am sure you are also aware of the provisions of the Protection from Harrassment Act, which makes it an offence to harass a person with a demand for payment, or concerting with others to do the same. Whilst the Act provides relief, it is available only where it is permissible in law to take the offending action (which, as pointed out, it is not lawful as it is statute barred), as well as that action being reasonable.

 

OPTIONAL PARAGRAPHS IF A 'DOORSTEP' VISIT IS BEING THREATENED

 

8. You have stated that they would send a debt collector to my address. I refer again to the OFT guidance on this matter, specifically at paragraph 2.12d (entering a property when not invited), 2.12e (failure to leave a property when asked to do so) and 2.12f (visiting or threatening to visit without prior permission when the debt is disputed).

 

9. Furthermore, you are reminded as to the common law provision which allows presumed consent of visiting without prior agreement (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 396). As such, I am notifying you that I do not give consent to you or your agents etc or employees entering my property.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not wish for any person acting in any manner relating to this debt to visit my property nor do I wish to make any appointment. Any person who visits my property in relation to this alleged debt shall be immediately evicted, using whatever force is reasonable and necessary, and I shall have no hesitation in gaining the presence and/or assistance of the police to do so. Furthermore, damages shall be sought under the tort of trespass.

 

I trust the above is perfectly clear and I now expect you to forward me your official complaints procedures within 7 days. Failure to do so will result in me filing complaints with the Offfice Of Fair Trading, The Financial Ombudsman Service, Trading Standards, my local MP, and Gareth Thomas - Undersecretary Of State For Trade And Consumer Affairs.

 

I hope this letter makes my position COMPLETELY clear

yours fathfuly

remember print name and do not sign

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...