Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The new Credit 500, an index of the most influential people in consumer and commercial credit in 2022, has been finalisedView the full article
    • The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is to launch two market studies and gather further information to investigate access to wholesale dataView the full article
    • I unexpectedly had a couple of hours free this afternoon and thought I would have a bash at helping simeon drafting his counterclaim.  Everybody please feel free to comment on and - hopefully improve it!  (In particular I am not sure if I've got the terminology correct vis a vis counterclaimant and defendant - so that may need correcting).   I am aware that Andyorch and BankFodder often stress the importance of keeping POCs to the bare minimum so as not to give away your case too much.  Whether I've given too much detail - or not enough - here, I don't know.  As I say, it's free to be pulled apart, but simeon seems to have nothing else.   Paras 1 - 16 (in black typeface) are simply a precis based on what has gone before and I've used them to put the counterclaim in context. Paras 17 - 19 (in red typeface) are simply my attempt to provide a basis for simeon's counterclaim.   At the end of the day this is simeon's documant - nobody else's.  simeon has to satisfy himself that it is both accurate and true, and also says what he wants it to say.  He will also have to order and sort out any attachments.  As I said earlier, I'm NOT giving legal advice!   Here goes... ===================================================================================================== Counterclaim   1.      The defendant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.     2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the counterclaimant and that the defendant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the counterclaimant provided the defendant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the defendant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.     5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the defendant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the defendant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The defendant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the defendant asked the counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The defendant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the defendant’s work but the defendant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the defendant's work.  The inspector spoke to the defendant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the defendant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The defendant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the counterclaimant of £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).     11.  The defendant asked if the counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project1, the counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.     12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the defendant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the defendant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the counterclaimant agreed to pay him £2000 on 18 August 2020.    14.  The counterclaimant subsequently paid the defendant  £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.     15.  It later came to the counterclaimant’s attention that the defendant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the counterclaimant’s property that the counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the defendant admitted he had done this.  The counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   16.    On 21 September 2020 the counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the defendant (Attachment 2).  Over a month later the defendant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Attachment 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the defendant.     17.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the defendant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at Attachment 4.   18.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the defendant also negligently caused substantial damage to the counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Attachment 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   19.  The counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the defendant to pay to the counterclaimant the sum of £nnnnnnn {Simeon - put in the actual total amount here} in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the defendant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete; (b)   the cost of completing work the defendant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the defendant and referred to in para 18 above; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 15 above.   A receipt in respect of item (a) - see Attachment 1 - and two priced quotes in respect of items (b) and (c) - see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.     =================================================================================================================   What I'm not entirely clear about are two points.   First, it's not 100% clear to me whether simeon can properly claim the £3300 in paras 10 and 19(a) or not.  What I mean is, simeon is arguing that this work required by his structural engineer was always within the agreed scope of Project 1.  But it's not clear to me if it was within scope or whether it was entirely new and unforeseen work.  As I see it simeon can only counterclaim this amount from the builder if it had already been incuded in Project 1.   Second, the basis of the counterclaim still seems extraordinarily thin to me.  Is it sufficient at this stage just to allege that the builder caused any damage negligently and is therefore liable to pay to put it right.   That's it from me I think...    
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this 'clone firm'.View the full article
    • Better.com boss Vishal Garg took time off after his handling of mass job cuts sparked outrage.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Hello from Ireland, Student Loan Dilema & Link Financial have lead me here.


WarrenBuffet
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2596 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

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi,

have just joined this forum as i have recently decided to tackle my Student Loans situation

which is currently being handled by Link Financial.

 

I am pleased to say that this is the last of my debts as it is so diffucilt to get my head around

as i find myself constantly running round in circles.

 

I have spent some time recently, studying the SLC and Link Financial - Thesis -honour Trustees Ltd and

 

started this morning with a phone call to Link Financial on the "No To 08" website provided number

and after politely being told i had come through to the wrong department

the lady passed me through to "Lisa" whom i have to say was very pleasant and helpful,

 

i told Lisa that i was happy to honour my student loan debt but needed clarification

on when they had taken over the Loans/debt and

how long i had been paying them a minor contribution of £10 per month

towards paying off the ever increasing interest they were charging on the debt,

 

i asked lisa if she would mind going back over my file and

talking me through what was on my file and

when this had arisen and

 

she then told me that a CCJ had been taken on my Student loans back in 2002 and

 

i asked her for a reference for this CCJ as i work in the financial services industry

and regularly have credit back ground check done in my name

as i would be unable to provide Investment advice if i did have any CCJ's.

 

Lisa then told me that although the CCJ had been taken it had not been enforced by Link

as i was making a small contribution on a monthly basis?

 

I was somewhat disturbed by this statement and asked her again for a reference to this CCJ and then stated

surely if i have a CCJ which is a 'defaulted Loan' then interest was not chargable on this debt?

 

Lisa immediuately replied that if i was to pay the loan off in full which i am totally prepared to do

that although my statement currently reads that i owe them £5,400

that the original figure of £4,200 minus all the payments i have made would be deducted from the £4,200

and that would be my final one off payment figure???

 

This has now given me fire in my belly and i went to my bank

and explained my situation and asked them if they could give me a statement

as to how much i have paid Link-Thesis-Honour Trustees over the past 10 years or so?

 

I was told that they couldn't as they only hold records going back 5 years

and that i would be better writing a 3 SAR's to LINk-Thesis-Honour Trustees.

 

So, would any of you good people have any recommendations on what i should do?

 

I have already managed to get £1K wiped from Link in a 20 min conversation,

and i beleive that they are telling me lies with this CCJ statement?

 

I wish to find out how much i have paid to LINK-THESIS-Honour Trustees ltd over the years

but it appears that i will have to write a SAR's letter to all three

and expect to get a reply back from one as the data will only be stored for 5 years?

 

I have also been in contact with the Student Loans Company

as i no longer have any record of my student loans taken nor how many?

and i have met a brickwall there as well.

 

I am not attempting to walk away from my debt,

but i will not be taken for a ride as well however i currently find myself with a memory problem

and at the mercy of these companies who all appear to be as thick as thieves,

namely The Student Loans Company-LINK-THESIS-Honour Trustees.

 

Any advice and direction would be very much appreciated.

 

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear

 

how many times have we heard link operators say ' you've got an old ccj!!'

 

DO NOT take anything link say AS THE TRUTH.

 

they will say

conjure up

photocopy

create

 

anything to get you paying.

 

can we have a wee bit of clarification please

 

you mention payments?

 

are you , have you, been paying this then?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and one lat thing NEVER EVER EVER phone any DCA

 

they will fleece you BLIND

 

they can get away with saying WHATEVER they like on the phone!!

 

link are MASTERS at this!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx100uk,

again thanks for the advice so far,

 

i have been recording my telephone conversations with Link thus far although i have not told them that i have been doing so.

 

As regards my loans sorry i should have clarified,

i was a student back in 1992 -1995 studying in the south of England,

my memory is not what it used to be and i cannot remember if i took a student loan in each of the three years or not?

I have been paying since 2002 to LINK/THESIS/Honour Trustees a minimal contribution per month of £5

which i increased last year to £10 as i was not even meeting the interest charged on the loan per month

which at the moment equates to £15 odd interest per month.

 

Yesterday, as i decided to take the plunge and attempt to get my head around what was what and where?,

 

i contacted the Student Loans company to see if it would be worth my whille sending them a SAR's notice so as too ascertain

how many loans i had taken out,

the amount of the loans combined and

when these loans had been sold on to the debt collectors?

 

I was told that they no longer held any details regarding my loans as they had been surrendered to LINK et al

yet their computer system was able to identify where i currently lived

which i guess means that they are one and the same as LINK/Thesis et al

 

as they, Link, that is claim to be only "Acting on behalf of SLC" which i don't understand

as my understanding is that they (SLC) sold my debt.????

 

Had a pleasant conversation with a lady called Lisa from Link on the 30th Sept 2013

and i explained to her that i was more than happy to pay what i owe

but, after researching my situation online i was alarmed by the amount of bad press her organisation

(Link) had online with others who appear to be in the same predicament as myself?

 

I asked her to explain why when i work in the Financial Services Industry why has the CCJ that they claim that i have as a result of my student loans default never shown up?

 

I asked her to give me a reference for this CCJ and she told me that she did not have this info to hand!?

 

At this point, i saw the opportunity to address the point of why was interest being charged on a 'Defaulted Loan'?

and i was immediately told that if i was prepared to pay off my outstanding debt

then all the interest charged by Link would be deducted from the current outstanding amount (£5.4K)

and that would leave me with a figure of (£4.2K) to pay!!!?

 

At this point, i thought what about the contributions that i have been making on a monthly basis for the last 10+ years

and was immediately told that all my contribution payments would be deducted from the £4.2K and thus bring the final sum payable into the £3K bracket....

 

. But! she would only be able to go as far back as 2008 as Thesis serviced my debt upto that point.

 

I then told her that she must be aware that LINK/THESIS? Honour Trustees Ltd were all the same company?

 

i received no reply for a while and then i was told that i would have to contact THESIS and Honour Trustees ltd

themselves and pursue any contribution payments made to them myself.

 

So, as it stands i have managed to get my debt from £5.4K down to somewhere in the £3.

 

something thousand bracket in a 20 min conversation,

 

i was told by Lisa that she would write to me with the new figure in due course,

 

so i shall wait and see?

 

My issues are that,

i have no idea what loans i have taken and where i can obtain information to confirm as my original paperwork has long since disappeared,

therefore i feel that LINK still have me over a barel as i can't ascertain what figure it is that i should be fighting for?

 

Do i send a SAR to Link instead of SLC? ...

 

.any help and direction pointing will be very much appreciated!

 

Yesterday, i went to see my bank manager to see if i could establish, exzactly how much i have paid LINK/THESIS?Honour Trustees

over the years and explained the situation to him.

 

Unfortunately he could not help me as he told me that banks must destroy data after 5 years

and therefore he could not establish how long my standing order had been in operation,

so that leaves me that i cannot work out exzactly how much i have paid LINK unless Link provide me with this info?

 

Today, (1st Oct 2013) i received an out of the blue phone call from Helen from LINK telling me that my account was up for review

and i would i be prepared to increase my monthly payments!!!!!!!!!!??????

 

Needless to say, i was taken aback as i informed Helen that until my account had been addressed

i would continue on with the same payment and that as they claimed that i had a CCJ against me as regards these claims

i should not be getting charged any interest on the debt as was verified by Lisa in a conversation yesterday!

 

I told her that i had completed a credit check yesterday evening and there was no record of any CCJ's so are LINK being untruthful?

 

Helen, then replied that 'well if there is no CCJ against your name then interest can be charged'!!!!!

 

I then asked her to give me a reference for my CCJ and

after some 5-10mins on hold she came back with a CCJ reference no begining XTwith six numbers following and a date of 14th Jan 2002.

 

Why is this not showing up in any credit checks nor any applications for work as i am unable to work in banking with any CCJ's ?

 

Thanks for taking the time to read,

 

and any advice and pointers in the right direction would be much appreciated.

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear link upto their usual tricks I see.

 

trying to confuse cash cowed people with the we don't own this company or that company.

 

pers i'd STOP paying them now.

 

they've had their pound of flesh.

 

the fact that there was a ccj gives them no more or less super powers.

 

and they cant have two bites of the cherry either with another one.

 

it also smacks me as funny that the ccj was prob AFTER 6yrs had elapsed

since the end of your courses

so another nail in their nefarious coffin

 

as it was an old style loan, then until/if you made £16k a year

it wasnt owed anyhow.

 

as for the interest too, that's another 'dodge' link pull.

 

we are now 20yrs down the line

 

lets say you started paying £5PCM in 1996 20*12*5=£1200

nothing like the £2400 discount already given by them.

 

stop payments

force their hand

 

they cant go back to court

and even if they do they'll have to provide PROOF & agreements

they'll never do that .

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again HB & dx100uk,

 

 

if I understand you correctly dx100uk that if the alleged ccj has lapsed then I should just walk away as the debt is no longer enforceable?

 

I would have loved to have gone for a few beers with you and pick your brain as I find this student loans / link episode a mine field.

 

I pulled my most recent ' Statement of Account' sent by link in early Sept this yr and at the top of the statement there are two boxes,

the box to the left has at the top 'Amount of Credit' - £3,460

below that is the title ' Date of first movement'

 

and below that

' Opening and Closing balances' for the last 12 months which equates to £5.4k

 

would I be corrrect in asuming that the £3,460 is my basis figure and the debt sold by Student Loans Company?

 

If so all payments made by me should be deducted from this figure?

 

 

One last request for advice as regards the alleged ccj,

I now have a reference and a date and the location given was London.

 

How do I now go about checking the validity of this ccj even though it is now 11 yrs old?

 

 

Thanks again,

Link to post
Share on other sites

before certain people pull one line out of a full post..

 

a CCJ does not lapse or expire

after 6yrs it is removed from public record [CRA files/trustonline site/public register]

 

if during this 6yrs you make no payment against it

or it is sold [whereby you have made no payments]

then it is VERY rare & diff for the 'buyer' or the original claimant to enforce it.

 

there is another thread here detailing these date of first movement statements.

 

I have not seen one so cannot comment.

 

just because link send you statements it does not mean its enforceable.

 

I have sad it many times and will continue says it

 

NEVER EVER trust anything link say or write or send you.

 

ALWAYS verify from another source.

 

this is where your money goes

 

http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property_news/news/millionairedebtcollectordigsdeepinsouthkensington.html

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok! i understand and i appreciate that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing (on my behalf).

 

Therefore if I have applied for credit cards/ loans etc over the previous 10 yrs

and not had any issues then it would be reasonable to assume it wasn't/isn't on my credit file?

 

Therefore should i attempt the ' Statute Barred' approach and force them to prove as I cannot get the info myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's another piece of useful info

you've been able to get credit

you've not been hauled up at work

 

so two good pointers to say theres something fishy about this CCJ

 

in the strictest sense you cant claim SB statute

as

you have been 'paying' the debt

 

but did the debt ever REALLY exist?

 

there too many if's and buts a nd wrong info from plink here.

 

first they say you were already paying , so the ccj was 'not enforced' [whatever that means!]

 

[my gut feeling it they tried for one [by the old address backdoor default judgement route]

& were told to bugger off by the court as it was statute barred- 6yrs from end of last course to date of claimform]

 

then they say you started paying after they got the CCJ intimating thus you did know about it and ack'd the ccj

 

let tie a few things up-

a ccj will get a judgement, its very rare for an SLC 'debt' to get a judgement that would not say something like:

pay £XXPCM, no post judgemental int can be charged.

 

lets assume the above, and lets assume that as you were already paying the judge agreed that you payments stayed as £5PCM.

so that makes the CCJ ok, and that makes your payments against it ok, so the CCJ is 'live'.

 

plink then cant turn around and say, the CCJ has now expired, we can charge interest.

 

to say that, is total bunkum! the CCJ and its judgement was running and getting paid - it would stay that way.

 

for them to say its expired, that means they are stating you never paid against it.

 

for them to also latterly contact you to up the payments is WRONG

the CCJ was running, they cant alter the judgement without going BACK to court

they didn't so that's bunkum too!

 

Now, here we have three examples of 'stuff' appertaining to a 'CCJ' that make no sense.

 

they did not enforce the CCJ.

they claim they can charge int once a CCJ expires

they varied the monthly payment level.

 

add these to that the facts above:

 

your employment status and CCJ's

nothing ever showing on your CRa file

 

 

so that's now 5 good reasons why this story & the CCJ from Plink is utter garbage!!

 

the underlying factor here is you continued payment to Plink...

 

where the hell has it been going?

off of what debt, no-one bar link appears to know anything about it?

 

me thinks you paid for his flooring !!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks dx,

 

I will go and visit my solicitor and once/if? I receive this letter from lisa at link take it from there.

 

Would it be sensible to send link a SAR and use this as the basis of my evidence or simply cancel my Standing Order

and force them to respond and bring action against me rather than me against them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO I would cancel

 

and force their arm

 

bet they scuttle back under a rock and just smile they got so much money out of another mug.

 

sadly they do this to 1000's of people

we here at CAG p'haps see

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will cancel my Standing Order tomorrow and then send the ' Statute Barred' letter and see what happens?

 

Would it be wise of me to begin a court action to recover the money I have paid them over the last 11 years?

 

I personally don't mind the cost as it would have been money paid to link and wouldn't it be ironic if the debt collectors had the Sheriffs at their door demanding payments for £700. .

 

....or am l being silly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not indicated to send the SB letter...

 

just cease payment.

 

lets see what they wave about.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no keep quiet.

 

just stop payments

 

let force their hand.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i went to HSBC today,

as i returned to university in 2003/04 to do an MBA and took out a 'Professional Studies Loan' for £20K

at this time in order to pay my fees and complete my studies.

 

I asked them if they would have undertaken a Credit Check on me at the time in order to process the loan and i was told ..

....Yes!, we would.....

 

... I then asked if they would happen to have my file as regards this Credit Check still on file

but as with all banks it appears that after 5 years all Data is destroyed and

 

since my loan is now paid off they have nothing on my file other than what has occured over the last 5 years.

 

So, it looks like more evidence to support my case against this supposed CCJ but unfortunately i still cannot gather any hard evidence .......Yet!

Edited by WarrenBuffet
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading through many threads on the boards as regards the SLC / Link / Thesis /Honour Trustees

and find myself abit alarmed at the way many threads are left!?

 

Usually, after a huge amount of input and advice from site staff on the direction people should follow

as regards dealing with the alleged CCJ's, Statue Barred etc that the threads are all ended just before the final chapters

with the thread starters not returning to report what has happened?

 

Last night i read one thread where a couple were both being pursued for pre 1998 Student Loans

and the lady was advised to take the statue Barred approach while her partner was being taken to court again and

 

both threads just ended before the crunch time!

 

Is this normal or is it just lazyness on behalf of the thread starters?

 

Would anyone mind showing me some of the threads that were carried through right to their conclusion

and reported back to the boards as i find myself reading many only to become frustrated

at their end as they simply stop without rhyme or reason!?

 

Sorry i shold clarify, the thread/s i am refering to is by PointyFacedCat ....

..... is she still around?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly this is what happens

 

you can normally bet though

that the result was in their favour and they need no more help.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep sadly that's 90% of threads

 

people don't even bother to donate either.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hear what you are saying dx, and trust me when I say that the advice received from yourself

and HB and from simply reading a few threads has already saved me nearly 2k.

 

I give you my word that upon conclusion of this unpleasant episode

 

I will be making a contribution as it is money I have already written off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Went out for a drink with an old pal who is a solicitor and

 

was discussing my situation with him as regards this Student Loans-Link et al,

 

he advised me to not cancel my payments to them yet

as that was justification for them be they Student Loans or Link to refer my debt back to court!?

 

I told him that i wasn't even sure if i did have a CCJ against my name and he said that until i am sure i should continue as is

 

... this is not his specialist field but he did advise me that i should gain as much info

as i can before i begin pursuit of these people.

 

Therefore, would i be wise to send a CCA now and then follow that with the SAR

and then decide what i need do then?

 

Im a bit confused sorry!

 

i know that you guys are familar with this situation and will know better than my solicitor friend

 

so should i send a CCA now or not?

 

Regards,

Edited by honeybee13
Pejorative word.
Link to post
Share on other sites

as post 21

 

as for the cca

 

later, keep the powder dry

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...