Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Interesting. Thanks for that London.  That’s what I’m gathering.     iv no doubt they would send me fake documents but would they really dare present fake documents to a court of law?
    • Thank you very much for your letter in regard to the above mentioned shipment.  Due to the high volume of parcels coursing through the courier network each day, undergoing continuous processing and handling, certain packages may experience delays or even can get lost in the course of this journey. Please note that due to the time that has passed, this shipment has been declared as lost.  I have today processed the claim and made offers to the value of £75 as a goodwill gesture without prejudice. I do acknowledge that you have mentioned in your letter that the value was higher, however, you did not take out any protection to that amount. The protection for this shipment was £20 and we will not be increasing our goodwill offer any further.    Please log into your account online in order to accept our offer. Once accepted, our accounts department will process the claim accordingly. The claim payment will be processed and received within 7 working days.                                  In addition, a refund of the carriage fee will be processed as a separate payment and will be received within 3 working days.  If I can further assist, please feel free to contact me.   I have also just noticed that yesterday afternoon they sent me an email stating that "after my request" they have refunded the cost of shipping. I did not request the refund so will mention that in my letter as well.
    • Hi I had to leave Dubai back in 2011, during the financial crisis. And only now have I received a letter from IDRWW. Is this anything to worry about about as I have 2 years left until it’s been 15 years(statute barred in Dubai). Worried as just got a mortgage 2 years ago. Could they force me in to bankruptcy? Red lots of different threads on here. And unsure what true and what isn’t. 
    • Not that TOR will see this now he's thrown in the hand grenade. Rayner has plenty of female supporters on X, for a start. As for the council and HMRC, fair enough and I thought Rayner was already in touch with them. That's where it should be dealt with, not the police force. @tobyjugg2 Daniel Finkelstein thinks the same as you about tax. The Fiver theory. How the Fiver Theory explains this election campaign ARCHIVE.PH archived 28 May 2024 17:36:51 UTC  
    • Often with the Likes of Lowells/ Overdales that 'proof' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.   Think about it like a game of poker, they want to intimidate you into folding and giving up as soon as possible, and just get you to pay up and roll over, that is their business model, make you think your cards are rubbish. What they don't expect, and their business isn't set up for it, is for a defendant to find this place and to learn that they have an amazing set of cards to play. Overdales don't have an infinite number of lawyers, paralegals etc, and the time / money to spend on expensive court cases, that they are highly likely to lose, hence how hard they will try to get you to roll over.  Even to the extent of faking documents, which they need to do because the debts that they purchased were so cheap, in the first place. Nevertheless it works in most cases, most people chicken out, when they are so close to winning, and a holding defence is like slowly showing Overdales your first card, and a marker of intention that this could get tricky for them. In fact it may be,  although by no means guaranteed that it won't even go any further than that.  Even if it does, what they send you back will almost certainly have more holes than Swiss Cheese, and if with the help you receive here, you can identify those weaknesses and get the whole thing tossed in the bin.
  • 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
      • 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 4967 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

Any ideas where I can get the FOS communication?

 

I don't know whether to just leave it and see what happens in the future. The only I'm worried about is that they might then say - well, you had the agreement before and never mentioned it, so you must have been ok to pay!

 

What would you suggest? should I write back a nice letter saying I don't think it's enforcable and see what they say?

 

Un1

 

now I am confused. These are two seperate issues so keep focus on that:

 

Your Credit Card CCA request has not been satisfied. As I understand it, you are now the same as a number of others - in a Mexican standoff - there is an unexecuted agreement, they are in default on S78 - send them a polite letter (I have posted this that many times I think I am going to put up a new thread for us all, so folk can grab and hack what they want) telling them the consequences.

 

Then add another paragraph thanking them for reconsidering and allowing you to retain your current account facilities. This no doubt is a sensible decision based upon the recent FOS rulings. (or whoever it was).

 

Z

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

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

Un1

 

now I am confused. These are two seperate issues so keep focus on that:

 

Your Credit Card CCA request has not been satisfied. As I understand it, you are now the same as a number of others - in a Mexican standoff - there is an unexecuted agreement, they are in default on S78 - send them a polite letter (I have posted this that many times I think I am going to put up a new thread for us all, so folk can grab and hack what they want) telling them the consequences.

 

Then add another paragraph thanking them for reconsidering and allowing you to retain your current account facilities. This no doubt is a sensible decision based upon the recent FOS rulings. (or whoever it was).

 

Z

 

Cool, was gonna do that and you have reassured me!!

 

Thanks! :)

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

Section 85 True Copies - see the exceptions in the regulations

 

right to assign often says that the lender has the right to assign their "rights" they do not have the right to retain illicitly obtained funds and therefore cannot assign that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

You can SAR any organisation that may hold your data.

 

Re: your old judgement -

 

Limitations Act 1980

 

24 Time limit for actions to enforce judgments

 

(1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

 

(2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

 

I'm not sure if this is subject to the 'acknowledgement or part payment' rule though so this will need further research before you tell them to go jump!:D

 

Regards, Pam

HI Zubo

 

I am afraid if you have been paying £1 a month of the debt you cannot use the statute bar.

Also it cannot be used in conjunction with a ccj.

 

Int he normal course of affairs although the creditor is entitled to pursue a debt indefinately, he can only persue it through the courts within six years of the debt being taken out unless there is contact of any kind regarding the debt,( with the exeption of flatley refusing it exists,) which would start the clock running again.

 

 

Payplan do an excelent info sheet on this

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Zubo

 

I am afraid if you have been paying £1 a month of the debt you cannot use the statute bar.

Also it cannot be used in conjunction with a ccj.

 

Int he normal course of affairs although the creditor is entitled to pursue a debt indefinately, he can only persue it through the courts within six years of the debt being taken out unless there is contact of any kind regarding the debt,( with the exeption of flatley refusing it exists,) which would start the clock running again.

 

 

Payplan do an excelent info sheet on this

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter

 

The section of the LA 1980 I have referred Zubo to is in relation to the enforcement by the creditor of any CCJ he already has, and is not about his 6 year time limit to chase the debt in the first place. That is a different section of the LA.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Okay, which one of you lot has decided to set up a business then? :D:D

 

Beating Banks With Bad Credit Agreements? - 30/03/2007

 

N.B - If you get to read the published quote on here from Wilson(yes, her again!:eek:) v Howard CA, don't get too excited!! -this is again a judgement based on the specific CCA rules about securities (pledges/pawns) having no effect if the agreement is unenforceable and is therefore not comparable with basic agreement situations.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

 

The section of the LA 1980 I have referred Zubo to is in relation to the enforcement by the creditor of any CCJ he already has, and is not about his 6 year time limit to chase the debt in the first place. That is a different section of the LA.

 

Regards, Pam

 

Hi Pam i was not aware that the statute of limitations act could be aplied to a debt post ccj.

 

I know the creditor may have to apply to the court to enforce after six years but i thought that was a different act.

 

Could you point me to the relevant section.

 

Best regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

 

24 Time limit for actions to enforce judgments

 

(1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

 

(2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Pami

 

is this from the 1980 act?

 

IHave this

 

County Court Judgments

 

If the creditor has been to court and there is a County Court Judgment outstanding, then you cannot use the Limitation Act to dispute you owe the debt. It does not matter how many years ago the creditor went to court, the County Court Judgment will still exist. However, the creditor may not be able to enforce the Judgment without the court's permission if the Judgment is over six years old. Phone us for advice.

If you think the creditor has been to court and got a County Court Judgment against you after the debt is out of the six year limitation period, then you can ask the court to "set aside" or remove the County Court Judgment so you can put in a Limitation Act defence. We have a factsheet on "Setting Aside a Court Judgment in the County Court". Phone us for advice.

The debt may be unenforceable but it is still a legal debt and non-payment is likely to have been entered on your credit reference file. A default will stay on your credit file for 6 years. We have a factsheet on “credit reference agencies”. Phone us for advice

 

Regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Pami

 

is this from the 1980 act?

 

 

Pami??? You gettin' fresh with me now Peter??:D

 

Yes, this is from the 1980 Act.

 

I have also seen the information you have posted up and confess I don't really understand why it says the creditor will have to/can apply to the court after 6 years. It seems at odds with the wording of the LA section.

 

I am also not sure if the 'fresh accrual upon part payment or acknowledgement' rule applies to this as it does with the 6 year action on a debt limitation.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pami wammi

 

Yes i have just found it in the act also.

 

Why would you bother having it put asside if it was unenforceable.

 

They seem to be contradictory.

 

Confused

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be a typo!

 

Els

 

Hi

 

Don't you believe it!!:D

 

Unless of course you're actually his missus (in disguise), in which case - YES, IT WAS DEFINITELY JUST A SIMPLE TYPO!!:eek::eek::cool::D

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI I .

If an action is commenced to recover money and say three years latter a ccj is issued on the debt without the knowledge of the debtor then he cannot use the SOL six year rule to ovride the initial action. He would have to wait a further six years untill section 24 took effect. mmm

 

I canfind nothing else in the act that overide this;Section 29(7)

 

Subject to subsection (6) above, a current period of limitation may

be repeatedly extended under this section by further

acknowledgments or payments, but a right of action, once barred

by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent

acknowledgment or payment.

So the part payment rule must apply to CCJs?

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pami wammi

 

Yes i have just found it in the act also.

 

Why would you bother having it put asside if it was unenforceable.

 

They seem to be contradictory.

 

Confused

 

Peter

 

Hi petee betee :p

 

Well I suppose it's only worth getting it set aside if it's still within the 6 years then.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

Sorry to be a pain about this but this has come up a number of times on here and the percieved wisdom has always been as i quoted,(probably drawn from he same source) .Now thanks to the witch of eastwick it seems that we have been labouring under a false premise and the sol does apply to a ccj.

I am open to arguments please:o

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now thanks to the witch of eastwick it

 

After that comment Peter, you may well have an argument! ;)

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
Hi

 

Okay, which one of you lot has decided to set up a business then? :D:D

 

Beating Banks With Bad Credit Agreements? - 30/03/2007

 

N.B - If you get to read the published quote on here from Wilson(yes, her again!:eek:) v Howard CA, don't get too excited!! -this is again a judgement based on the specific CCA rules about securities (pledges/pawns) having no effect if the agreement is unenforceable and is therefore not comparable with basic agreement situations.

 

Regards, Pam

 

Not Guilty :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI I .

If an action is commenced to recover money and say three years latter a ccj is issued on the debt without the knowledge of the debtor then he cannot use the SOL six year rule to ovride the initial action. He would have to wait a further six years untill section 24 took effect. mmm

 

It would appear so

 

I canfind nothing else in the act that overide this;Section 29(7)

 

Subject to subsection (6) above, a current period of limitation may

be repeatedly extended under this section by further

acknowledgments or payments, but a right of action, once barred

by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent

acknowledgment or payment.

So the part payment rule must apply to CCJs?

 

Again it would appear so! :(

 

Peter

 

Hi

 

This Act, like many others, is very confusing! I guess someone would have to actually try their luck under s24 and see what happens!:confused:

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After that comment Peter, you may well have an argument! ;)

 

Hope so uni

 

Otherwise it would mean she was correct and i would never hear the end of it.

 

:shock:

 

Regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope so uni

 

Otherwise it would mean she was correct and i would never hear the end of it.

 

:shock:

 

Regards

 

Peter

 

hehe! :)

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

hi

Sorry to be a pain about this but this has come up a number of times on here and the percieved wisdom has always been as i quoted,(probably drawn from he same source) .Now thanks to the witch of eastwick it seems that we have been labouring under a false premise and the sol does apply to a ccj.

I am open to arguments please:o

 

Peter

 

PINS!

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys

 

Need your help on a new thread I just setup

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/79147-consumer-credit-act-resources.html#post698254

 

comments/ suggestions/changes here please, then I will edit the intro

 

Tam sorry to jump into this thread

 

Z

 

|Err the thread with four posts has vanished, tried asking for info from admin, no response as yet.

 

I am guessing that mods didnt like how I wanted to use the thread...

wish they would just say so...

 

Z

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4967 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...