Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
    • whats the court claimform for? return of goods order? please complete this:  
    • std DWF letter. typically £157 something. lots of them here already doesn't say WILL anything. read it properly 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

Ruthbridge, DLC & Black Horse help needed!


maud26
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5332 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 all

I have today received letters (1 each for me & hubby) from Ruthbridge Ltd claiming that if i do not make payment by 6th Nov they will declare me bankrupt- this is no threat to me as we have been through this before and are still coming out the other side! (Discharged 2002). This debt in question relates to a Black Horse loan taken out in 2005 which was transferred to Hillesden and now it seems to DLC and Ruthbridge - confusing!

We defaulted on the loan due to my ill health and when we realized we had been a victim of PPI mis-selling i immediately wrote to them to complain, after hearing nothing I forgot about them - only receiving 'updates' from Hillesden to say they were still searching for my CCA copy! After 12 months of searching they did in fact find it and I have heard nothing until recently from these scumbags. So my question is what is the best way to proceed now? I know that Hillesden have a copy of the CCA but what about the PPI issues? And is there a letter I can send to get them off my back for a while longer? What is the timescale when debts are no longer 'chaseable'?

Many thanks in advance

Maudy x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Hillesden have a copy of the CCA
Have you sent them a request for a copy to see if it's enforceable? http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/581-cca-request-letter

What is the timescale when debts are no longer 'chaseable'?
A debt becomes Statute Barred after six years in England/Wales if no payment or written admission of the debt has been made during that period (five in Scotland).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and thanks for the reply,

Yes I have a copy and I'm sure someone on here checked and confirmed it is enforceable so I (altho my memory is hazy on this) think that just left me the PPI issue to throw at them. Its been a case of waiting to see if they pursued it and its been so long now i had almost forgotten about them lol! Until this - a rather nasty bullyish letter i might add!

Is the Statute Barred 6 year date from the date I last made a payment??

Thank you again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until Ruthbridge provide documentary proof they have the right to collect an enforceable debt all their letters are simply a waste of paper, ink and other stationary materials. You can write and tell them this wasting even more of the earth's scarce resources or ignore them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...