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
      • 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

Equidebt/wescot - chasing card not paid for +6yrs

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4068 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

All good advice as far as I can see.


But dp77 - in your initial post, you say that this is with regards to a very old credit card debt. Presumably, if this card was taken out before April 2007, then the original creditor or and subsequent DCA would be obliged to produce the original and fully enforceable agreement in order to be able to proceed with any court action to recover amounts they claim to be due.


Without that, it's just bluster and you can, as advised above, send the SB letter. Correctly worded, that shouldn't restart any SB clock.


By the time they've muddled through it all, more than likely, the whole thing will be past the SB date anyway. Problem solved. ;)


Good luck!


H. x



Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say an SB letter is the way forward here.


If the following is correct the debt statute barred: 6 clear years with no payment or written acknowledgment of the debt,send this it DOES NOT AKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT SO DOES NOT RESTART THE YEAR CLOCK.


To the Compliance Manager



Ref: use theirs.




I refer to recent correspondence regarding an alleged debt for £xxxx.xxx which you claim is owed by me, please take note I do not acknowledge any debt to xxxxx or any company it may claim to represent.


I have taken the opportunity to review my credit history and have concluded that any such alleged debt is statute barred, therefore I will NOT now or at any time make any payment or offer of payment in regard to the alleged debt.


I remind you that if xxxxxxxx disputes the status of the alleged debt the onus of providing unequivocal proof that the alleged debt is not statute barred lies entirely with your company, statements that ''mystery''payments were made at any time are not acceptable as proof that any such payment was indeed made.


I am fully aware of the OFT Guidance on Debt Collection 2003/2012 and the sections regarding the pursuit of statute barred debt.


XXXXX will now cease to process all data relating to me and remove it from its records.




Send by RM Recorded Delivery.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi (Halibutt)- That is correct, the agreement would have been from pre 2007 and I know for a fact they don't have the original agreement, or even a scan of it. They could possibly reconstitute one, but it wouldn't hold up in any due process. I learned the hard way not to take these things personally and that firing off letters and spouting consumer law can get you into trouble, so I'm inclined to let it go.


I managed to negotiate my way out of a truly dire debt mountain a few years ago and the only creditor I couldn't reach agreement with was the one I choose to argue with. I got totally stitched up, fake agreements, scans posing as originals, offer letters "lost" in the post, court papers mislaid, outright lies on witness statements, lost payments, fake charges, just about everything you can think of, from a high street 'name' lender as well. If I'd had a decent lawyer I could have nailed them but I couldn't afford one and they knew it. Relying on the Judges mercy at a hearing after a plea of "I've been stitched up" was not an option.


I won't send a letter or enter into communication of any kind unless it's absolutely necessary and even then I try to avoid the template stuff, simple, impersonal and don't pretend to be a lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's your choice of course, but if you want to be rid of this one and for all the letter drafted is NOT a template and is desingned for your situation.

One way of establishing if a debt is statute barred is, is it on your credit files? If it is not the entry was removed on the 6th anniversary of the defaut date, so as the cause of action ie the date a payment was due and not made after which no further payment was ever made is often 5-6 months before the default date one can conclude the debt is statute barred..

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I've noticed a large number of searches by a company I have no connection to; Lowell Portfolio. These are listed as 'unrecorded searches' , which I understand means only I can see them but does the Data Protection Act not offer any protection in terms of who can search my file?


This is a company I owe nothing to, I have never been contacted by them, I have never had any dealings with them yet they have searched my file multiple times. I understand a would be lender can access my file but this is not the case here.


Should I write and ask them what right they have to access my personal financial data? Or is that simply awaste of time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The searches are for tracing an identification purposes and you are correct they are seen only by you.

As to ''protection'' regarding who may search your files the following is what authorises such searches

is to be found in the terms and condition of an agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

(as amended 2006/20120) where when a ''customer'' signs the agreement he/she accepts that the creditor

may at any time report to CRAs on the conduct of the account, therefore if a debt purchase company such

as the Lowell Group has acquired an account from one of the debtors creditors the rights and obligations and

the ''benefits'' of the original agreement pass to the debt purchaser.


These searches may be challenged on the number and frequency of the searches.


Any complaint should be made to the Data Controller of the company making the searches, and should contain this statement: ''I do not acknowledge any debt/liability to Lowell''.


The letter should be sent by recorded delivery and its receipt should be checked.


For info. DO NOT use a PO BOX No. Just 1 Apex View, Leeds LS11 9BH.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Equidebt/wescot - chasing card not paid for +6yrs
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...