Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
    • means nothing. just trying to kid people its going up some kind of chain. get reading a good few threads here each day. dx  
    • also do an OC2 https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/256744-welcome-secured-loan-sold-to-coast/?do=findComment&comment=4917128  
    • ok  from the infamous cruzhughes mammoth welcome thread i remembered. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/394686-welcome-secured-loanscharge-sold-to-alphaprime-repo-received-claim-dismissed/?do=findComment&comment=5009109 prime credit 5 was a luvy co. along with alpha credit 5 their uk portal was thru prime credit,  loans were administered on their behalf by Acenden, Acenden are Part of the Kensington Group. ultimately these were mostly all sold to Coast  Prime_28th_Aug.pdf
  • 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

SLC student loan Default at CRA, help!!


avatari
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5191 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

Here’s another one likely going to court. SLC’s mistakes appear to be multiple. Can anyone advise on my proposed actions below?

 

I’m one of the unlucky few to have a default registered on my file, backdated to 10 Jan 2005. I also have a default notice from them, with the same date on the letter. The letter demands payment of the sum in arrears by 25 Jan. This leaves me only 15 days from the date the letter was printed. I believe the letter must give me 14+2, thus making the DN invalid?

 

Secondly, I believe the debt to statute barred at the point SLC actually applied the DN to my file (sometime last month or three, I have an Equifax file from October with nothing on there), as I had had no contact with them in writing since April 2003, when I deferred for a year. Does the deferral make it only 5 years as SLC were expecting no contact until April 2004 or does it run regardless since last written contact?

 

Furthermore, SLC have defaulted me a second time on the same accounts in Aug 2007, though this DN (also invalid time for rectification) is not showing at the CRA. Surely they can’t default me twice?

 

Proposed actions: CCA and SAR to SLC and see what comes back. Both letters to stress a) in response to DN reg at CRA, b) no acknowledgment of debt. Plan to leave SB at the moment until I see what comes back then build the best case possible for Default removal and account closure/court action if not complied with. Or should I just dive in with demand to remove as a) debt statute barred, b) invalid and duplicate DNs? Or do both SAR/CCA AND demand?

Edited by avatari

To err is human: to completely mess up is my peculiar gift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help - here is the DN, original was double-sided so 2 pages front and back.

 

I have deleted the date of notice and the rectification date, the ones provided before were deliberately ficticious so as not to expose my identity to SLC. I am certain that the second date follows 15 days after the date of the first!

 

 

 

 

Look forward to your reply, am very curious!

Edited by avatari

To err is human: to completely mess up is my peculiar gift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help - here is the DN, original was double-sided so 2 pages front and back.

 

I have deleted the date of notice and the rectification date, the ones provided before were deliberately ficticious so as not to expose my identity to SLC. I am certain that the second date follows 15 days after the date of the first!

 

Look forward to your reply, am very curious!

 

 

They are too small mate, you need to upload them to photobucket and use the IMG code to put them on forum :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

cut and paste the image code

 

sorry, that was me being lazy and thinking I could get away with thumbnails. all done now, thanks 2ltr and postggj!

To err is human: to completely mess up is my peculiar gift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can, but to be honest, i have checked and apart from the details (which I would be blacking out anyway to hide identity) it is identical in form and word to the 2007 one. only significant differences are the dates which are 15 days apart and i have already provided to you by PM?

To err is human: to completely mess up is my peculiar gift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did The 2005 Dn Have Both Yours And The Creditors Name And Address On It

 

Thats On The Same Document

 

yes, again it's identical to 2007 DN on #5. to make things easier, i've uploaded it:

 

SLCdefault2005.jpg

To err is human: to completely mess up is my peculiar gift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...