Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.View the full article
  • 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

Arrows & HSBC credit Card 'debt'

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 116 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi Guys I hope I have placed this thread in the right area. I was wondering if someone could give me some advice.

Several years ago I ran up a credit card debt with the HSBC of £4,000 after paying £90 interest for months on end I finally yielded and defaulted on the debt, I went to my local CAB and agreed a token payment of £1 per month.

After several months the HSBC sold my debt to Rockwell debt collection and I received a letter from them acting on behalf of phoenix recoveries demanding payment of the £4,000 within 7 days, stating that phoenix recoveries acting in the name of Tessera recoveries as assignee of the HSBC bank and all HSBC’s rights in, to and under the above account, and that under the terms of defined in the data protection act 1998 we are now the data controller of your personal data contained in the records of this account (HSBC), they also phoned and spoke to me, when I told them I couldn't pay the guy asked could I take the money off another credit card to pay them I didn't think this was right so I went to my local CAB and they negotiated the same deal that I had with the HSBC of £1 per month.

I’ve been keeping to the deal but last month they again sent me a letter (after leaving about 12 phone messages) stating I had to pay the full £4,000 within 7 days, a family member offered me a loan of £800 to offer them as a token payment under the proviso that should they accept the debt would be wiped, they replied by letter stating that this offer was unacceptable as was the offer pre existing offer of £1 per month, and that they would accept £3,000 to clear the debt and that if I could not pay this or come back with a better payment option they would pass my account over to their litigation department, what does this mean ? My other question is could I still challenge this debt as being unenforceable as when I asked for proof that I owe them the money they said that my past payments, and telephone contact is my acknowledgment and acceptance of this debt.

Also I do not want to be forced into bankruptcy as I still owe 11,000 on a student loan and while I am unemployed at the moment I am making good on several repayments I owe to other companies however I don’t have any money to offer Rockwell I wonder what they can do to me as I have no assets and live with my parents could they force me into banruptcy ? could anyone give me any advice it would be very much appreciated. Thankyou for your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Guys thanks for moving the thread for me, I never had PPI as they (the HSBC) gave me the credit card when I Started university I think I may have had a few late payment fees as charges but don't have the statements to prove this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Surf


If you send HSBC a SAR Request with £10 they will send you all the data they have on the account, that includes statements over the last 6 years. They have 40 days to respond. All templates and speadsheets can be found on this site. If you've got Credit Card

charges you have a dispute with HSBC. Templates and Spreadsheets are in the library.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surfhair...............as I read your thread do I understand that Phoenix Recoveries/Tessera have purchased the debt from HSBC?????????If this is the case I assume this information comes from ROCKWELL AND NOT PHOENIX...if this the situation ,why would you take Rockwells say so that they are acting for Phoenix and why would you pay Rockwell any money without Phoenix providing a Notice of Assignment first.and confirmation from them that they have given Rockwell the authority to act on their behalf......I ask this question as I have been down the Phoenix route with another DCA,and did no give in until the DCA complied,in the end they got so fed up it was written of.I do not think it unreasonable to take this approach....................FS

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all thank you all for your help, the letter I received from (the HSBC) when they purchased the debt stated that the above account (HSBC) has been assigned to Phoenix Recoveries (UK) Acting in the name and on behalf of Tessera Recoveries and that phonenix recoveries have appointed Rockwell collection agency to manage my account. Rockwell sent more or less the same letter word for word except they said the full amount of £4,000 was now due and that and that under the terms of defined in the data protection act 1998 we are now the data controller of your personal data contained in the records of this account (HSBC) I was unsure what that actually meant as I am uneducated in such issues The most recent letter which was from Rockwell stated that their clients Phoenix recoveries Uk ltd SARL have confirmed they are not prepared to continue with the current situation, the payments I have been making have been to Rockwell I did ask in my letter to them could you please provide me with a copy (proof) that you now own the debt that was previously held by the HSBC (I wish I had asked this when they first claimed the debt) they replied back stating "your past payments, and telephone contact is your acknowledgment and acceptance of this debt. I never CCA rockwell or phonenix all the contact I have had has been with rockwell the telephone conversation they mentioned took place a while ago with quite an aggressive guy the first time he phoned he was telling me I had to pay and asking could I borrow the money to pay them or take it off another credit card he said he was phoning on behalf of rockwell. Would it be worth me CCA them now or has that ship sailed

thanks again for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

"your past payments, and telephone contact is your acknowledgment and acceptance of this debt. "

This statement is basically true but that does not stop you from requesting a cca nor does it allow them to not supply it, noe does it stop you from stopping the payments if they do not

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys thanks for your help so far Rockwell have replied to me with this letter,

We note your request for a copy of the original agreement quoting section 77-79 of the consumer credit act 1974. Unfortunately the agreement is no longer available. We are therefore unable to comply fully with your request however we enclose a statement of the account showing payments made to us since agreement. Notwithstanding this loan remains valid and we except you to meet your obligations under the agreement.

We acknowledge the fact that until we comply with our obligation to send you a copy of your credit agreement pursuant to S.77 (1) of the consumer credit act 1974 (CCA) we can not enforce your credit agreement through the courts. This is not in dispute

Whilst we are unable to take legal action to enforce the loan this does not affect the validity of the underlying debt. Section 77(4)of the CCA does not make the agreement void, therefore as the debt still exists we are entitled to carry out any actions that do not amount to enforcing the agreement including demanding payment, charging interest, transferring the debt to a third party, Registering the debt with a credit reference agency and issuing a default notice. This was upheld in the recent case of MCGuffick V Royal Bank of Scotland plc. We therefore reserve our right to register any default with the credit reference agency.

In respect of any claim that this debt is in “dispute”, we agree that the agreement is unenforceable in a court of law as explained above however we can prove that the money lent to you has not been repaid to date and therefore neither of these facts are in dispute and we consider this matter resolved. Please therefore continue with your payments towards the account.

Were do I stand on this as the letter they sent my last week stated the £1 payments were no longer acceptable and that they will take litigation if I don’t pay, also why are they referring the money owed as a loan when it was a credit card with the HSBC should I continue paying a £1 any help would be really appricated as I don’t really know what to do at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are contradicting themselves and also giving mis-information,they admit no agreement and they say they cannot take you to court and then threaten you with court action,IMO,State you do not acknowledge any debt as the agreement that underpins the account does not exist, by your own admission----- go on paying them £1 and make it very clear this payment is a gesture of goodwill whilst they Rockwell return the disputed account back to HSBC as they are well aware whilst an account is in dispute the Original Creditor should not sell or employ a 3rd party to try to enforce any debt.......................I would also leave the loan/credit card mixup as is,could be useful at a later date......I am sure you will also receive additional/alternative Caggers views..good luck...............FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they’re stuffed. You can, effectively, stop paying, with impunity.


They cannot, by their own admission, take you to court. It is, at present, unenforceable.


Yes, they can record a default, but they can ONLY continue to enforce the original default issued by the bank. They cannot issue a new one. The default will drop off your credit record 6 years after it was issued. You may want to check they are complying with this via your credit record.


They are also being economic with the truth about the assignment. Phoenix is a Luxembourg-based special vehicle of CarVal Investors, and Rockwell is merely a DCA collecting on its behalf. Phoenix should be the data controller in this instance (or its division, Tessera – there is a sub-division of Phoenix called Tessera, as well as a part of Rockwell called Tessera. I believe this is designed to deliberately confuse people).


So, once again, a DCA has lost its client money by being greedy when a payment agreement (albeit small) was in place. Knobs.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for all help I really appreciate it and will be making a small donation to the site for the help I’ve had.

I hope you guys could give a little more advice in that if I follow the advice given by DonkeyB and PGH7447 should I write to Rockwell and tell them I will no longer be making any payments and that I want them to enforce the original default issued and if doing this should I be worried about the case of MCguffick v RBS that they quoted at me or should I just do nothing and simply stop paying the pound and have no further contact with them, also if I could ask firstship why he thinks it would be best for me to continue paying the £1 thanks guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys I’ve spent a week thinking over my decision and have decided I am not going to continue paying the £1 in part as they have told me more than once that this is no longer acceptable and "that they are not prepared to continue accepting £1 per month". Do I need to send them a letter informing them of this or should I just take no further action and wait for them to send me another letter.

Thank you kindly for all your outstanding Help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...