Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • old and new threads merged i though you were going to send the SB letter in 2017? dx  
    • dunno you've not scanned up what you've had before how can we tell?  
    • Today , after a lot of years i received a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we haven't 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 had successfully gotten deferment on low income. But rather than sign on as unemployed ,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondence ceased from them, circa 2001. To date I have had no correspondence 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)      
  • 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

Rule 78 unregulated agreement


san.s
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4055 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

Hi,

Im new here and wondered if i can get some help.

 

My wife and I took out a remortgage in Oct 2004 for £22k. Payments at £333.06PM over 180 months at a eye watering 17.9%. We were not aware that the finance company were using the Rule 78 system until a few years ago. Since last year we have gone into arrears as we could only afford to pay £200pm.

 

Last statement in February 2013: Balance was £28,699.76 and arrears balance £2,388.02

 

The original agreement has no mention of Rule 78 so I need to know if their practise is illegal and if we have a claim of any sort.

 

Help!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because when I questioned how interest was being applied they sent me a table of rebate fractions by rule 78 explaining that was the method being used

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well rule of 78 was a method used when loans were settled early and tended to penalise the borrower on settlement.

 

For a loan which is ongoing you should just be charged interest on the amount outstanding from month to month an of course on any arrears that have accrued.

 

If you wanted to settle the loan and they used rule of 78 to calculate the settlement figure you could challenge it as being an unfair term.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So for settlement, would they have to apply rule 78 till the year 2010 and anything after that would be based on current regulations? O

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wanted to settle now then I think you would have a strong case to argue that the lender can only charge two months interest as an early settlement charge.

 

Some people get confused with how interest is actually charged over the lifetime of a loan. In the early months of the loan there is a large amount of capital outstanding and so more interest is apparent in the early years of a loan. As the loan progresses more of the capital is paid off so the interest amount reduces.

 

Interest isn't charged in equal amounts per month.

  • Confused 1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...