Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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

Student Loan - Debt passed on to Link Financial


Bleep
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4868 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've been contacted by phone by Link Financial Outsourcing regarding my 4000 pound student loan.

 

Admittedly, I slipped up by not making sure that I kept up with the deferral - though I have never earned above the threshold.

 

I don't own any assets, aside from a battered old van and I'm unemployed and have absolutely no money to give them.

 

I don't have a permanent address - I'm at my parents at the moment.

 

I'm kind of worried that now they've got me at this address they'll just send round some debt collectors, who will then cart off a load of my parent's property! What are Link likely to do next? What are they allowed to do? And what should I do?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dca 's have no legal powers

 

dont fall for their threat-o-grams

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no moog symplifier.......

but no link either,

it not to do with music..

 

anyhow.....

 

nothing will happen, how long has this been since you updated the system or had the loan?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The loan was from 97/98.

 

Around 2000ish I had a dispute with the SLC after they took money from my bank account without warning. IIRC they claimed I had made an error in filling in the deferral form and hadn't provided all the info they asked for, something along those lines. Then I subsequently changed address a couple of time, with periods when I was NFA and I sort of lost track/forgot about the whole thing..

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Well, that would be nice, but sounds too good to be true.

 

That said, the letter I've received from Link says that,

 

'the loan agreement has been terminated by Thesis Servicing'

 

now I don't recall having any dealings with Thesis. Perhaps Thesis bought the debt from the SLC and, as/if the statue of limitations came into effect, sold the debt on to Link, who are now attempting to recover whatever money they can via scare tactics.

 

Well, that would be nice, if it were the case - but, like I say, sounds too good to be true!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be absolutely sure, but I think the last time I had any dealings with anyone regarding this was over 6 years ago - which, I guess, would put me beyond the statute of limitations cut off point?

 

If that's the case, what's my best strategy for dealing with Link?

 

Do I say 'nice try, but this is now beyond statutory cut off'. or do I just ignore them completely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear DCA

 

RE: xxxxxxxx

You have contacted us 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.”

 

We would also point out that the OFT say under their debt collectionlink3.gif 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”.

 

Prior to recent payment I felt forced into making under duress the last payment of this alleged debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment had 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 us 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 section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970”.

 

We 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.

 

We look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

l

 

SEND THE ABOVE BY RECORDED DELIVERY TO LINK AND REALY MAKE THERE DAY:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just thought I should give an update.

 

I sent the DCA (Link) a letter framed around postggj's template. That was about a month ago. I've just today got a letter from Link saying that they have reviewed the case with reference to Section 5 of Limitation Act etc... and the loan account is now cancelled, no further action will be taken!

Can't really believe it, but I'm pretty relieved to say the least!

 

Anyway thanks for all the help, esp. postggj!

 

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

well dont think it will die there

 

all they'll do is fwd it on to the next leecher for a sum and mention nowt about the sb side.

 

but now you know.

 

ignore them whoever contacts you.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you know Thesis Servicing is LINK FINANCIAL

SLC handed over the management of a lot of student loans to Thesis a while back, esspecially ones that had been defered for years and those reaching the statue barred limit. You then get demands from LINK saying the debt is owned by thesis, when in fact they are the same compamy

 

They tried it on with me last year over a 1993/4/5 student loan, which had been defered for over 12 years, they tried to make me pay the full balance, but **** their own pot as they failed to notice my date of birth before making their idle threats, the month before their first letter the loans were writting off due to me reaching 50, which was one of the terms on the old type loans, so their little plan didn't work.

 

Pay them nothing, it statue barred

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...