Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

Link Financial Outsourcing - Student Loans debt pre-1998


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4607 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

Hello All,

 

Link Financial Outsourcing sent me a letter a few weeks ago telling me that I owe them around £8k from a student loan I took out in the following years - 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997

 

I did a little research on this forum and found that pre-1998 student loans are not enforcible and are statute barred debt after a period of 6 years. I have never repaid this debt, not even once and can't remember even writing to them to defer it either. I suppose I have been lucky in that I have lived abroad for quite a few of those years so I guess they have been unable to trace me until now when I have come back to settle in the UK.

 

I sent link financial outsourcing the following letter and they have since tried to call me 2 times.

 

*********************************************************

 

Link Financial Outsourcing

PO Box 141,

Caerphilly,

CF83 9BX

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Acc/Ref No *******/**********

You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

I would point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

I would also point out that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that “it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period”.

The last payment of this alleged debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to CPUTR2008

I await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that no further contact will be made concerning the above account after that last letter.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully

**********************************************************************

I am now wondering whether or not to send the following harrassment letter?

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/578-letter-to-dca-persistant-after-statute-barred

 

Could someone please advise?

 

Many thanks!

 

PS: This forum is excellent - I'll be surely donating some money to you guys!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cerberus,

 

Thanks for your response.

 

It says the following on that page:

 

"if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt."

 

So basically, if the Student Loans have been attempting to get back the money I owe them via letters etc, then do they not have a right to get the money back? They constantly sent letters to my parent's house years back but saying as it's well past 6 years now and I have never paid them a penny I don't see how they can ask for the money to be repaid? See the below:

Statute Barred

 

A debt is considered Statute Barred if a creditor has not contacted a debtor for a period of 6 years and no action has been taken on the account.

Although the debt is still legally acknowledged as being owed, the creditor is not able to take any legal action against the debtor in order to recover the debt. It is considered unfair if a creditor or debt collector misleads the debtor into believing the debt is still legally recoverable. It is also considered an unfair practice if the creditor or debt collector press for payment after the debtor has stated they will not be paying the money owed. This could amount to harassment contrary to Section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970

Also, I read somewhere that the Student Loans passed all outstanding debts on to Thesis or Link Financial Outsourcing in 2008.

I'm just wondering where I stand here from a legal point of view?

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be in regular contact is a two way action, they may well have sent letters to someone's last known address but it doesn't mean they've received them and responded. You would need to have made a written response, deferral or payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
thus I can not make a claim on this statute barred
If no written contact, deferral or payment was made within a six year period (five in Scotland) it will be Statute Barred. Send them this for now; http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/573-general-debt-letter-if-you-know-nothing-of-the-debt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make it perfectly clear, if you have not made any payment or have not written to THEM for at least 6 years (5 If you live in Scotland) acknowledging the debt or acknowledged it in a recorded telephone conversation then it WILL be statute barred. (OR if there is a gap of at least 6 years in the life of the debt where no payment/acknowledgement has been made) Send the statute barred letter by recorded delivery....once you state that you have no intention of making a payment towards a debt that is barred by the statute of limitations act 1980 then they have to stop contacting you...the OFT make it quite clear

 

Section 2.14 (b) of the OFT's guidelines on Statute Barred Debt..

 

 

continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

This has been confirmed by the OFT's action against another debt collection agency last year - please read this - OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts - The Office of Fair Trading

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Fermanagh

I am in almost an identical situation to you.

I took out student loans in 1994, 95, 96 & 97

I then lived abroad and travelled a lot. I have since come back here and although about 8 years ago I gave the SLC an overseas address I never updated it.

Now last week I got a call about the loan, I would not confirm any details over the 'phone and then today I receive a threatening letter, entitle

"Notice of Debt Collection Services". from Link Financial Outsourcing.

It is threatening to say the least. WHat is bothering me is, that my current financial situation means I am living back at my parents and second they are threatening on this letter about sending an agent to the property.

Obviously the debt has nothing to do with my parents but now I am terrified that someone will turn up.

I am currently not even earning enough to pay the loans back.

I do not know what I should do here.

As far as I can tell I have had no contact with them since 2002-2003 and I do not know if they can say that is my fault and thus I can not make a claim on this statute barred thing.

Also, can they claim all the money back - I do not have any assets as such and would assume they can not send bailiffs to my parents property when it is not their debt.

THis is completely stressing me out and I do not know what to do.

Any advice at all??

PLEASE

 

DONT STRESS

 

I had a student loan pre 97 and havent paid a penny back

 

Also NO ONE will turn, its just to get you worried in to contacting them (and they are succeeding by worrying you)

 

No baliffs will call (only once gone to court etc)

 

More experiance people will give more indepth advice...

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK..

Thank you to all replies here.

Is it recommended I write or call them back in the first instance?

Should I write about this statute barred status? I am concerned about opening a whole can of worms here.

I am completely stressed out and can not believe after all this time I get this sort of letter.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Edited by Katybintjas
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it recommended I write or call them back in the first instance?
No send them this http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/577-statute-barred-letter-scotland once they receive it according to OFT guidelines all collection activities must cease until such time that they can prove it's not Statute Barred. If they continue complain to Trading Standards via Consumer Direct.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is what they told you then they are incorrect...

 

Student loan agreements are simple contracts

and this gives the Student Loans Company

(SLC) six years from the date you last paid or

acknowledged the debt to go to court to

enforce the agreement. There are two sorts of

student loans and different rules apply

depending upon when you took out the loan.

Old style student loans

Old style or ‘mortgage’ student loans are

consumer credit agreements. Payments cannot

automatically be deducted from your wages.

The SLC has to go to court before they can

enforce the debt against you. This means that

the Limitation Act can apply if you have not

paid or acknowledged the debt for over six

years.

WARNING

Asking for the loan to be deferred could

count as acknowledging the debt and start time

running again.

New style student loans

From September 1998 new style or ‘income

contingent’ student loans include rules to say

that repayments will be automatically deducted

directly from your wages or through your tax

return if you are self-employed. This means

that the SLC are still allowed to take money

from your wages for a loan over six years old

as they do not have to go to court to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the first time CAB have been wrong and no doubt it won't be the last. :rolleyes: Obviously whoever you spoke to does not know the difference between the old style student loan and the new style.

 

As for someone visiting your address, see; http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/590-letter-used-when-a-dca-threatens-a-doorstep-visit-.html

 

Send Link the letter in post #11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

I have written the Statue barred letter. Do I even include my address on it as would be normal in a letter as that is surely acknowledging it or do I leave it blank and just the reference number?

I plan to send it today. Another call was received this morning - although no one answered it, there was just a cut off message on the answer 'phone.

****

Dear Sir/Madam

Loan Account Number: XXXXX

 

You have contacted me regarding the above account number which you claim is owed by myself.

I would point out that under The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, Part 1 Section 6 “If, after an appropriate date, an obligation to which this section applies has subsisted for a continuous period of 5 years:

a) Without any relevant claim having been made in relation to the obligation, and

b) Without the subsistence of the obligation having been relevantly acknowledged, then as from the expiration of that period the obligation shall be extinguished”.

I would also point that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that it is “unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period”.

The last acknowledgement of this alleged debt was made over five years ago. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from myself in the relevant period under Part 1 Section 6 of The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, I would respectfully suggest that you are no longer able to take any action against myself to recover the alleged amount claimed.

I await your written confirmation. Contact MUST be in writing, I have no access to any telephone number you hold.

Yours faithfully

****

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...