Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • dunno you've not scanned up what you've had before how can we tell?  
    • Today , after a lotof years i recieved a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we havent had any contact from you in a while".  The velvet fist, followed by  a veiled threat to get their preferred debt collectors involved. Yep dead right. In 1992/3 I took out a Student load under duress from DHSS. uP TO 2000 I hadsucessfully gotten deferment on low income. But rarther thansign on as unemployed,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondance ceased from them, circa 2001. To date  I have had no correspondance from Student Loans. I was made  redundant in 2009 and  reached 65 in 2012 , at which age the loan should have been cancelled. Now ,today, 12 years on retirement and 11 ( at least years after last contact) I get a letter with veiled threats. Do I , as I smell a scam a) ignore it and hope that Erudio will think that this phishing attempt has failed or b) respond with a statute barred letter or c) remind them of legal terms that loan should be cancelled 12 years ago or d) combination of b) +c)      
    • But I'm not mixing and matching. Sure, when researching I do check multiple avenues, but when speaking, I will open a single post. The Fb post was made in March, it is now June, time has passed, and when the suggestion was made, no further information was given on how I should progress beyond "send a letter", which has meant that I've needed to start another stream - this one, but only after taking the time to research first.
    • hes not turning you away he is simply saying that you should stick to one channel of advice. he is perfectly happy with that channel being this forum, and he will help you   all he is saying, and I agree, is that you should stick to one help channel, not mix and match 3/4
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4984 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

Guest Battleaxe

I wonder how Ms MBNA will respond? LOL....

 

This just get better and better. Tam and I have a real axe to grind with A & L/MBNA. I think Tam wont be too heartbroken if they end up having to close up shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I think Tam wont be too heartbroken if they end up having to close up shop.

 

 

Do you actually think this will happen though?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to send a few sec 85 default letters myself. Just as soon as I finish catching up on my other cases that have been allowed to slide over the last couple of weeks.

 

Just put together more evidence for the ICO regarding GE Money and Asset link, will post more details in that thread when reply received, but they have acknowledged the complaint and transferred it to a case worker for investigation.

 

Now I need to get my court pack ready for Abbey in March :)

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how Ms MBNA will respond? LOL....

 

This just get better and better. Tam and I have a real axe to grind with A & L/MBNA. I think Tam wont be too heartbroken if they end up having to close up shop.

 

LMAO :rolleyes:

 

They are paying the claim on that credit card in bits and pieces lol. Latest payment leaves almost 200 outstanding and the cheque arrived with nothing but a compliment slip for A&L :eek: so I am guessing its another part payment.

 

They obviously dont want her spending it all in one go lol

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually think this will happen though?

 

Its very possible Un1.

 

Consider that they cannot enforce the agreement whilst in default. Getting out of default in a sec 85 is not as simple as supplying the agreement retrospectively. as they would still need to consolidate charges and interest in the intervening period.

 

Now imagine that I do not know of a single instance where a copy of the executed agreement has been sent with a replacement card. There is estimated at something in excess of 60 Million cards in circulation in the UK, all of which are in theory in default. so If we assume a card is replaced every 2 years then it means they should refund at least 2 years of charges to every card out there. Then we should also consider the 2500 fine for each offence if everyone reported it.

 

This is why I keep saying they will argue this as much as possible as every individual case could be valued at up to about 5000. 60 Million x £5000 is a lot of cash to find when their actual cashflow is limited.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I see....talk about the consumer revolution, lol!!

 

I'll have to get my sec 85 written off then eh?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right then folks. I am wallowing in CCA sections right up to my neck. I get the impression that there is more going on behind the scenes that is stated on the forum. However I think I am interested in

 

S59 - (not 100% sure about this one but wonder if it covers application forms not being a binding agreement)

 

S61

 

S63

 

S85

 

If I am on the right track I am appalled at just how much of a pickle the credit industry has got itself into!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

I am sure this why they can't claim an application form is the Credit Agreement, even though they try it on, thinking people do not know the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI All

Sorry if i missed this but if they are commiting an offence on Sec 85 for say 3 years, actually almost 4 on one card, we can claim back interest paid, compound contractual Interest at their cash advance rate ,and the normal monthly payments, how about card protection ins....

AL:)

-------------------------

CAPITAL ONE * SETTLED*31st Oct 06

HBOS *SETTLED* 8th Oct 06

WOOLWICH *SETTLED*12thJan2007

Monument (Barclays) *SETTLED*10thMar2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right then folks. I am wallowing in CCA sections right up to my neck. I get the impression that there is more going on behind the scenes that is stated on the forum. However I think I am interested in

 

S59 - (not 100% sure about this one but wonder if it covers application forms not being a binding agreement)

 

S61

 

S63

 

S85

 

If I am on the right track I am appalled at just how much of a pickle the credit industry has got itself into!

 

Hiya Jones - I spotted this stuff back in November and have read and read this stuff and YES - it's appalling. I had read this stuff and kind of "knew" I had the answers and kept thinking "Nah!! this can't be this simple" I PM'd some others as I really doubted what I was seeing - like you say it's appaling for these companies to be in this mess!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Un1boy,

 

You might as help apply the pressure to these erstwhile institutions.

 

I might as well - most of the banks I've been with have asked me to close my accounts anyway!! Even though I haven't even been charged by them, let alone claimed any back!!

 

I've got nothing else to lose!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator

The banks are going to be on the backfoot from now on. S85 cannot be interprated any other way and the terminator has a few other aces up his sleeve. To all and sundry if you think that this is the way to avoid debt then forget it.This is bringing the banks back into line.They are not above the law like any individual on this site,The only thing is that we've done our homework they haven't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator

he is very uncomfortable about the Section 85, he did ask how much was it going to cost them, so when I told him the figure, and the compund contractual interest. I think they are going to have some uncomfortable discussions in the ensuing weeks, seeing they have been in breach since November 2003. He also asked how I found out about Section 85 and I told him that I have a copy of the Consumer Credit Act and have plenty of time to read then spoke to some very wise men. I am going to get a pimple on my tongue for that fib.

I wonder why he is uncomfortable about S85( that tells you something) most proberly because this has opened the floodgates. As for saying the bank can't be defaulted his just proved himself wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks are going to be on the backfoot from now on. S85 cannot be interprated any other way and the terminator has a few other aces up his sleeve. To all and sundry if you think that this is the way to avoid debt then forget it.This is bringing the banks back into line.They are not above the law like any individual on this site,The only thing is that we've done our homework they haven't.

 

I haven't contributed to this thread a great deal, but I have followed it for a good many weeks now and it makes excellent reading. This S85 debate is a whole new can of worms, and I can see a vision of the Bank / Credit Card Executives starting to run around like headless chickens in shear panic. I agree that if you want to walk away from your debts then this isn't for you, but by the same token, if the card companies are indeed in default over S85, as they appear to be, then any return of interest / penalty charges over 4 years for instance will have the effect in most cases of wiping out the amount owed I would think.

 

Tamadus, Terminator, Uniboy and others, I take my hat off to you guys, your doing a great job for the consumer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all could I just mention that you are already in the process of recovering their unlawful charges.

 

After that is accomplished is the time to invoke section 85 when you can tell them that their agreement is unenforcable so they can now go take a running jump for any outstanding monies.

 

Remember THEY wouldn't hesitate to use any breaches by YOU to THEIR advantage

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
I

Tamadus, Terminator, Uniboy and others, I take my hat off to you guys, your doing a great job for the consumer.

 

Thanks for the compliment.S85 has taken a lot of reaserch from not only me but tamadus and the rest of the guys.We are in constant communication amongst us and when the time is right we will unleash it.If we can help just one person it will be an acheivement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
Hi all could I just mention that you are already in the process of recovering their unlawful charges.

 

After that is accomplished is the time to invoke section 85 when you can tell them that their agreement is unenforcable so they can now go take a running jump for any outstanding monies.

 

Remember THEY wouldn't hesitate to use any breaches by YOU to THEIR advantage

 

Agree with everything you say there Jon but there is another chapter after S85 should I let it out or wait.....:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of what constitutes a copy agreement has been discussed in the past but I can't seem to find it. I remember there was a lot said about a copy doesn't have to show certain information such as signatures but that if anyone is challenging the validity of the agreement then we should ask for the signed one.

 

I am trying to find out what is an accepted copy for other parts of the Act such as S63 and S85 ie what did they have to send us at the time. Per the Act a copy is one defined by Section 180 but all that says is that regulations may be issued stipulating what a copy may or may not include. Can anyone remember where those regulations are?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does have to be a 'true' properly executed copy on which your signature must be present if they want to enforce the debt.

 

The copy agreement without signature is meant to be sent to you at the outset & the none-inclusion of a signature was for security reasons in case it got lost in the post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Terminator

 

I think so have been re-reading the CCA & I have to say there are a number of other sections we can invoke which will drive the money lenders potty as, like their failure on agreements, I suspect they will not be able to pit up a counter argument.

 

I beginning to hear the pips squeek

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Jones - I spotted this stuff back in November and have read and read this stuff and YES - it's appalling. I had read this stuff and kind of "knew" I had the answers and kept thinking "Nah!! this can't be this simple" I PM'd some others as I really doubted what I was seeing - like you say it's appaling for these companies to be in this mess!!!

 

I had the same feelings when I realised the implications in sec 85 Lizzy. It just seems to keep running through your head. NO WAY have I got this right and How can they be so stupid and blase.

 

Sad to say I now firmly believe we have got it right and they are in for some big shocks

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does have to be a 'true' properly executed copy on which your signature must be present if they want to enforce the debt.

 

The copy agreement without signature is meant to be sent to you at the outset & the none-inclusion of a signature was for security reasons in case it got lost in the post

 

Jon,

The more I think about SI1983/1557 the more convinced I am that it was brought in because of sec 85, so that new cards did not get lost in the mail along with a copy of the agreement with signature. That really would be a security nightmare.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4984 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...