Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Shein has been linked to unethical business practices, including forced labour allegations.View the full article
    • Hi I have to agree with @unclebulgaria67 post#3 For the funding side of moving to a new area and it being private supported accommodation I would also suggest speaking to private supported accommodation provider about funding but also contact the Local Council for that area and have a chat with them about funding because if you are in receipt of Housing Benefit certain Supported Accommodation that meets a certain criteria is treated as ‘exempt accommodation’ for Housing Benefit purposes but you need to confirm this with that relevant Council in your new area especially since it is Private Supported Accommodation as each Council can have slightly different rules on this. If you have a certain medical condition look up the charities and also have a wee chat with them as they may be able to point you to different Grants to assist with moving costs and your question about funding for private supported accommodation as well.
    • Hi Just to be clear a Notice to Quit is only the very start of the Housing Association going down the Eviction route there is a long process to go. Also to be clear if you leave at the Notice to Quit date only and go to the Council claiming you are Homeless they will more than likely class you as Intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. The only way that works is when the Court has Granted a Possession Order then you can approach the Council as Homeless with the Court Order. As for the Housing Association issuing the Notice to Quit because there investigation has proved it's not your main residence but you have witness statement to prove otherwise. From now on with the Housing Association you need to keep a very good paper trail and ensure to get free proof of posting from the post office with anything you send to them. You now need to make a Formal Complaint to the Housing Association and please amend the following to suit your needs:   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: Notice to Quit Letter Dated XX/XX/2024, Hand Delivered on XX/XX/2024 I note in your letter that you stated that the Housing Association has carried out an investigation into myself and came to the conclusion that I am not using this property as my main residence and have evidence of this and have therefore issued a 'Notice to Quit' by XX/XX/2024. I find the above actions absolutely disgraceful action by the Housing Association. 1. Why have I never been informed nor asked about this matter by my Housing Officer. 2. Why have I never been given the opportunity to defend myself before the Housing Association out of the blue Hand Delivered a Notice to Quit Letter. 3. I have evidence and witnesses/statements that prove this is my Main Residence and more than willing provide this to both the Housing Association and the Court. I now require the following: 1. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 3. Copies of your Investigation into this not being my main residence.    As well as the above you need to send the Housing Association urgently a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that in whether it be letters, email, recorded calls etc. The Housing Association then has 30 calendar days to respond but that time limit only starts once they acknowledge your SAR Request. If they fail to respond within that time limit its then off with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).     
    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
  • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Cap1 & CCA return


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4972 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

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 15 (6 members and 9 guests)

Hello guests!

If I may be so bold as to venture a scenario for the benefit of our guests...

 

The bank passes your alleged debt to a DCA;

The DCA chases you for the debt;

The bank write off the debt;

The DCA still chases you for the debt;

So as no debt exsists (been written off by the bank) The DCA have acted fraudulently?!

Seems fair to me!

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

Read throught the

FAQ's and when your ready, start a thread in your banks forum to keep us all updated!

If the information I have provided is useful, please click the scales!

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

So.....to clarify....

If the debt is passed to the DCA to recover and the bank write off, the DCA still chase you, its possible that they have commited fraud.

BUT...

If the bank sells the debt to a DCA regardless of what the banks do, the DCA has a right to collect the debt as they see fit.

Is that about right?

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

Read throught the

FAQ's and when your ready, start a thread in your banks forum to keep us all updated!

If the information I have provided is useful, please click the scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So.....to clarify....

If the debt is passed to the DCA to recover and the bank write off, the DCA still chase you, its possible that they have commited fraud.

BUT...

If the bank sells the debt to a DCA regardless of what the banks do, the DCA has a right to collect the debt as they see fit.

Is that about right?

 

No read Dimond v Lovell

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read Dimond v Lovell. How are you equating that to a DCA commits fraud if they try to recover a debt passed onto them from a bank? If the bank passes a file to a debt collection agency this does not equate to writing off a debt. If a debt is sold, then the debt hasn't been written off. If someone runs up a credit bill, how are you equating this to this case? Am I being thick here? The hire company surely took the hit on this one, not Dimond ..... please PM me with an explaination as I can't see it (I work in IT, not in law)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I too am at a loss to see any corelation between Dimond v Lovell and a DCA (acting on behalf of the bank)chasing you for a debt that has been written off.

Surely if they are acting as collectors for the bank, and if the bank then writes off the debt their agent chasing you after the fact must be tantamout to fraud!

I hold my hands up to being an ignoramous.

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

Read throught the

FAQ's and when your ready, start a thread in your banks forum to keep us all updated!

If the information I have provided is useful, please click the scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Think of the bank as the hire company..........If they have written off the debt then no debt or liabilty exists (also remember they get tax breaks on unpaid debt).............It then follows that the DCA has no right to try & collect a debt that no longer exists

 

The bank would have acted illegaly if they told you something which was untrue & to your financial detriment as per below:

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

 

Section 3 provides that where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, & intends to make a gain or cause a loss or the risk of a loss an offence has been committed

 

Also:

Fraud by abuse of position

 

Section 4 makes it an offence for a person who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against the financial interest of another person, to abuse that position dishonestly and intend, by means of the abuse, to make gain or cause a loss or risk of a loss to another. This creates a very broad offence which may catch the banks

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Think of the bank as the hire company..........If they have written off the debt then no debt or liabilty exists (also remember they get tax breaks on unpaid debt).............It then follows that the DCA has no right to try & collect a debt that no longer exists

 

The bank would have acted illegaly if they told you something which was untrue & to your financial detriment as per below:

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

 

Section 3 provides that where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, & intends to make a gain or cause a loss or the risk of a loss an offence has been committed

 

Also:

Fraud by abuse of position

 

Section 4 makes it an offence for a person who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against the financial interest of another person, to abuse that position dishonestly and intend, by means of the abuse, to make gain or cause a loss or risk of a loss to another. This creates a very broad offence which may catch the banks

 

But the banks don't write off the debt, they sell it. OK they make a loss, but a sale is a sale and it isn't written off. Therefore, again, there is no write off and therefore I am unclear as to where you believe the case applies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I too am at a loss to see any corelation between Dimond v Lovell and a DCA (acting on behalf of the bank)chasing you for a debt that has been written off.

Surely if they are acting as collectors for the bank, and if the bank then writes off the debt their agent chasing you after the fact must be tantamout to fraud!

I hold my hands up to being an ignoramous.

 

 

The bank would be acting fraudently if they lied to you by saying they hadn't written off the debt when they had. The DCA having purchased a non existent debt would be acting fraudently if they told you they had a legal right to claim the debt when they hadn't

 

In other words if either lied to your financail detriment & their gain that would be a fraud

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I get that bit. But, hey, you've got a snowballs chance in hell of getting them to admit to anything. My personal experience with DCAs is they pester you to the ends of the earth, until you question them, at which point they clam up and go by the book. Getting anything in writing is a chore (especially the agreement they made with the bank) and when contacting either, they pass you between pillar and post.

 

If we're going to use this, we need a concrete method of extracting the agreement the bank made with the DCA. I believe (stand by to shoot me down) but a SAR doesn't cover such an agreement, and there is nothing we can do to force them to supply it (except in court, or in disclosure), and therefore the fraud angle is relatively simple for them to deflect. I wouldn't want to start any legal process on this basis alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon I need to phone you is it switched on ?

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

But the banks don't write off the debt, they sell it. OK they make a loss, but a sale is a sale and it isn't written off. Therefore, again, there is no write off and therefore I am unclear as to where you believe the case applies?

 

Then you haven't read the link.........According to the banks own publicity they have written off over 6 billion...........So they can't sell something that no longer exists...........As a result buying debt has serious implications for the DCA's

Link to post
Share on other sites

this quote is from terminators link to the multi billion "write off" (so called)

 

"Citigroup, which monitors arrears of companies that securitise credit card debts, is also encouraged. Cardholders falling behind on payments appear to have stabilised. Even so, it believes that bad debts on personal lending will worsen to £7.2 billion in 2007, £7.4 billion in 2008 and £7.6 billion in 2009. "

 

securitisation is when a number of debts (guess at 100 ) are bundled together and sold by "a" to "b" ---- we ythink at about 15 % of £face value" (my invented term) ...... securisation also happens with mortgages "i believe" -- possibly to free up liquidity or keep some "ratio" looking good ...... so from here they are using the wrong word "written off"

 

Question what if the bank says your debt will shortly be written off then sells it ?

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you haven't read the link.........According to the banks own publicity they have written off over 6 billion...........So they can't sell something that no longer exists...........As a result buying debt has serious implications for the DCA's

 

The portion of the debt they have written off is what makes up the 6 billion, not the portion of the debt they have sold......

 

Oh...

Right....

clunk........

the DCA can therefore only charge what they paid for the debt ......

clunk........

the bank has taken away their ability to charge for the rest.......

clunk

ker-ching!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, the bank may well have written-down the value of a debt on their books, but that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination (or law) equate to writing off the face value. How else would you have trade price and final price on anything? We live in a free market economy and what I sell a banana to you for doesn't mean you can not charge what you like for it.

 

Likewise, if I decide to call it a day on a credit card account with a balance of £2k, if I sell it to a DCA for £300, I haven't written it off, I've just made a loss on it. The debt wasn't written off, the value of the debt on my books wasn't realised completely.

 

So I'm still in need of a little bit of convincing on this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok the point is...i think..

If the CC owes 2k and you sell it for £300 to a DCA then does the £1700 that has been removed from the debt count in the £6.6 billion that the banks claim to have written off.....

answers on a postcard to....

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

Read throught the

FAQ's and when your ready, start a thread in your banks forum to keep us all updated!

If the information I have provided is useful, please click the scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the point is that the value hasn't been written off, it has been sold. I bought a car for £300.00 and sell it for £500.00. Does that mean the person who sold the car to me wrote off £200 in the transaction, or that they just didn't maximise the market value.

 

The banks have decided that it isn't in their interests to be tarnished in the way that a DCA is in attempting to maximise the true value of an account. The banks have reputations to uphold, the DCA's do not. The banks need to be seen to be whiter than white, the DCAs do not. This is trade here, purely and simply. The Dimond case didn't have the hire company selling the debt onto another company, did it?

 

There is nothing wrong with selling an account to a DCA for less than the true value. What you're more likely to have a better success with is saying the Banks are not allowed to sell the debt without the proper paperwork, otherwise they are committing fraud by selling something that is unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RIGHT

 

 

i used an arbitary figure of six billion in my calculations !!!

 

 

 

at 15 pence in the pound (selling debt at that rate)

 

the total debt considered for sale and write off was 7.06 billion

85 percent of this is 6 billion

15 percent of this is 1.06 billion

 

so a total of 1.06 billion "has been passed to DCA's as valued i the accounts of the bank that is the dcas have paid this much

 

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

ok so we are treated like this , but how is third world debt and other institutions even other people treated (upper echelons)( borrowing at much lower rates) treated ----- can anybody see anything from a human rights angle (always worth a mention)

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think were singing from the same hymn sheet just im tone deaf!!

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

Read throught the

FAQ's and when your ready, start a thread in your banks forum to keep us all updated!

If the information I have provided is useful, please click the scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok the point is...i think..

If the CC owes 2k and you sell it for £300 to a DCA then does the £1700 that has been removed from the debt count in the £6.6 billion that the banks claim to have written off.....

answers on a postcard to....

 

The £1700 hasn't been removed from the debt. The £1700 is still part of the debt, the DCA now owns that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the point is that the value hasn't been written off, it has been sold. I bought a car for £300.00 and sell it for £500.00. Does that mean the person who sold the car to me wrote off £200 in the transaction, or that they just didn't maximise the market value.

 

The banks have decided that it isn't in their interests to be tarnished in the way that a DCA is in attempting to maximise the true value of an account. The banks have reputations to uphold, the DCA's do not. The banks need to be seen to be whiter than white, the DCAs do not. This is trade here, purely and simply. The Dimond case didn't have the hire company selling the debt onto another company, did it?

 

There is nothing wrong with selling an account to a DCA for less than the true value. What you're more likely to have a better success with is saying the Banks are not allowed to sell the debt without the proper paperwork, otherwise they are committing fraud by selling something that is unenforceable.

 

I agree but what I'm saying is that on the one hand if they write the debt off then they have nothing to sell.........if they don't sell all of it off whatever the sale value that is all they are allowed to claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4972 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...