Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been reading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. On mediation form you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee that you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • 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
      • 160 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 Student Loan Debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4925 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,

 

Firstly, I would implore any other first-time posters to write any lengthy posts like these in a separate program and copy paste, as I just spent ages writing this, only to lose it all when I hit “Preview Post” as I had been logged out!!! :mad2::mad2::mad2:

 

You never know, maybe this version is more concise!:

 

 

Been reading this site quite a lot recently due to recent contact with Link. The sheer size and number of threads is a little overwhelming - especially for a "forum novice"!

 

I'm after a little advice on my situation, so here's the rundown:

 

1995/96, 1996/97, 1997/98 - I took out three student loans.

 

1998, 1999 - I deferred payment.

 

After this, things get a bit hazy (it was a long time ago!), suffice to say that I lost contact/failed to defer (between 1998 and 2007, I lived at 13 addresses!).

 

Sometime in 2002 I was contacted by the "Student Loans Company" (I presume by this point, this was actually "Thesis"?).

They said I had defaulted on the loan (a sum of about £4,400), and that interest had been frozen, but that I had to start making payments. As I was on benefits at the time, I set up a DD for £5/month.

 

After this, I must admit, I just forgot about it, and the £5/month has been going out ever since.

 

Last month, I took a call on my mobile that turned out to be from Link Financial.

 

They asserted that I now owed them payment in full, as I had failed to pay off the balance within 60 months. They also stated that the balance was now about £5,600 (not exact figures, I don't have the paperwork to hand) due to interest and charges (I didn't think you could accrue interest on a defaulted loan?)

 

As I had no idea of Link's DCA pedigree, I started off trying to come to some arrangement with them, saying that I would like to arrange to increase my payments and come to some payment plan agreement. This is when all the usual harassment tactics came into play, such as threatening "Bailiffs", "House attachment", "Criminal proceedings", etc. if I did not pay in full.

 

This is when I started doing some internet research on my rights in general, and realised they had no grounds to make these threats. The last contact I had with them, just before I started reading these forums, I told them I may be in a position to pay a lump sum of £1000 when my next invoice was paid. This was mainly to get them off my back for a bit. I am possibly in a better situation than most, in that I could find the money and have done with it (though £5.5K is a lot of money in anyone’s eyes), though that hasn’t made me feel any less stressed about the situation, and makes me really angry when I think of all those who are in much worse positions and have to deal with these heavy-handed thugs.

 

The long and the short of it is that I took the credit in the first place, and do not feel that I should be exempt from repayment. But I have endured 6 years of CCJ’s and bad credit in the past, due to my complete financial ignorance around my student days, and I would rather not go back there.

 

Ideally, I would like to come to an agreed (greatly reduced) sum that I can pay off in full, and walk away knowing that the debt is settled (especially as I balk at the “interest and charges” that they say have accrued).

 

Any advice on how to move forward?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I spoke on the phone with Link today, and they said the following:

 

"it's a government owned loan, the actual debt is owned by finance for higher education, and we're servicing the loan on their behalf, and they're requesting that you pay the full balance. Any repayments offered are not acceptable, it's only the full amount."

 

(A repayment schedule offer) "..will be declined, on the basis they want the full balance repaid"

 

"It will go to the manager if you can't pay the full balance, and they will make a decision on the next course of action on the account."

 

I then asserted that if they took this to civil court, the court would decide what were reasonable repayments for me to make. The response being:

 

"but that's not always the case, obviously if it was always the case, then we wouldn't bother issuing court proceedings against people. Obviously it is entirely up to the court what action they would take against you, if we were to go down that route, but obviously legal charges would be applied to your balance also, making it more costly for yourself…"

 

A few questions:

 

  • Is it true that finance for higher education still own this debt? I thought they sold the loans to Thesis in 1999?
  • Can interest and charges be applied to an account after it has defaulted?
  • Is it reasonable to demand £5,500 in full, with (apparently) no room for discussion, and without having provided a statement of any kind (which they say I have to request in writing, enclosing a fee of £1 per year of statement requested)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link are full of sh*t! Don't trust a word they say and wait for some top notch advice here.

Someone who knows more about your circumstances will be along soon to advise you.

In the mean time stop talking to Link on the phone. If they call you just tell them everything in writing. Link are professional liars and will tell you anything to get you to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a clear period of six years (five in Scotland) where you have made no payment, deferrals or written acknowledgement of these SLs then they are statute barred and no enforcement action can be taken.

 

Unfortunately, I had been making the £5/month DD's ever since the default date...

Edited by willofthepeople
wrong quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...