Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

How much is a sold on debt worth?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4647 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

Imagine the situation......

 

OC has sold off a debt because, for example, they reneged on the PPI and the alleged debtor was rude enough to think that s/he had a legitimate claim.

 

Whatever.

 

The new owner has bought the alleged debt as part of a job lot and at a discounted rate. The new owner then starts chasing the alleged debtor.

 

In statute, is there a mechanism whereby the new owner can be compelled to disclose how much the "debt" was bought for and thus what is the value of the alleged debt, as it now exists?

Smeagol

 

Thank you all for being part of a forum which sheds light into this murky world.

 

I used to be uncertain - but now I'm not so sure....

 

Found an interesting post on 38degrees about Bankers (et al) hiding behind bad sections in the Data Protection Act. If you want to change it add your support by voting for the proposal to change the legislation - and tell all of your friends (as I am doing here). The link is http://tinyurl.com/6fttnx5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a deed of assignment might reveal this information but you are unlikely ever to see it.

 

I read somewhere a credit card holder obtained this info from Barclaycard, the debt was sold to a debt purchaser for 3%. Not a bad business model if you can intimidate the debtor into paying the full outstanding balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

get the PPI back then!!

 

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

Whilst not trying to lead my reader in any way I have some dim recollection (mine are mostly quite dim) that there was such a provision in the Consumer Credit Act or another statute relating to lending agreements.

 

If we can nail this down then we may well be a huge warren of very happy bunnies indeed.

 

But as the Spartans said,

 

"If!"

Smeagol

 

Thank you all for being part of a forum which sheds light into this murky world.

 

I used to be uncertain - but now I'm not so sure....

 

Found an interesting post on 38degrees about Bankers (et al) hiding behind bad sections in the Data Protection Act. If you want to change it add your support by voting for the proposal to change the legislation - and tell all of your friends (as I am doing here). The link is http://tinyurl.com/6fttnx5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops

Edited by Smeagol
Deleted - appeared twice!

Smeagol

 

Thank you all for being part of a forum which sheds light into this murky world.

 

I used to be uncertain - but now I'm not so sure....

 

Found an interesting post on 38degrees about Bankers (et al) hiding behind bad sections in the Data Protection Act. If you want to change it add your support by voting for the proposal to change the legislation - and tell all of your friends (as I am doing here). The link is http://tinyurl.com/6fttnx5

Link to post
Share on other sites

get the PPI back then!!

 

dx

 

Doing that but the PPI is a separate contract with a different company. The OC, in the meantime has sold the disputed load to a DCA. One presumes that DCAs buy these things "in good faith" and may feel they have an entitlement. My thrust is that if some "reputable" lender has sold a "debt" whilst it is in dispute and takes the attitude of "speak to the DCA" then clearly one would wish to know how much the DCA paid "in good faith" because that is what one would be talking to the DCA about. The PPI repayment cannot be assumed.

Smeagol

 

Thank you all for being part of a forum which sheds light into this murky world.

 

I used to be uncertain - but now I'm not so sure....

 

Found an interesting post on 38degrees about Bankers (et al) hiding behind bad sections in the Data Protection Act. If you want to change it add your support by voting for the proposal to change the legislation - and tell all of your friends (as I am doing here). The link is http://tinyurl.com/6fttnx5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a private transaction between 2 businesses and therefore I would be surprised if there was ever a need to make it public to the debtor.

 

As far as the law (i.e regulators/courts etc) are concerned, even if a £1000 debt was sold for £1 it makes no difference, the full balance is still payable as it always was (assuming everything is in order).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst not trying to lead my reader in any way I have some dim recollection (mine are mostly quite dim) that there was such a provision in the Consumer Credit Act or another statute relating to lending agreements.

 

If we can nail this down then we may well be a huge warren of very happy bunnies indeed.

 

But as the Spartans said,

 

"If!"

 

They also said:- !! As It Is Said - It Shall Be Written - It Shall Be Done!!!

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to note is that if the debt has been written off as a bad debt - and claimed as a tax loss - particularly on VAT - then it is illegal to then sell the debt afterwards. Wonder how many companies stick to that law

 

This raises a potentially interesting question. Being that writing off a debt as a bad debt (I imagine) must by recorded on the personal record of the borrower (because the OC would otherwise still believe it to be live) then would this not be part of disclosure under an SAR and would the Information Commissioner have encountered this at some point?

Smeagol

 

Thank you all for being part of a forum which sheds light into this murky world.

 

I used to be uncertain - but now I'm not so sure....

 

Found an interesting post on 38degrees about Bankers (et al) hiding behind bad sections in the Data Protection Act. If you want to change it add your support by voting for the proposal to change the legislation - and tell all of your friends (as I am doing here). The link is http://tinyurl.com/6fttnx5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Del

Smeagol

 

Thank you all for being part of a forum which sheds light into this murky world.

 

I used to be uncertain - but now I'm not so sure....

 

Found an interesting post on 38degrees about Bankers (et al) hiding behind bad sections in the Data Protection Act. If you want to change it add your support by voting for the proposal to change the legislation - and tell all of your friends (as I am doing here). The link is http://tinyurl.com/6fttnx5

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...