Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

DCA Fredricksons and Lowells Letters - are they statute barred?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3844 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

I would hugely appreciate some advice relating to historic debt on my credit file now shown as in default:

 

Looking on Noddle I have 3 things in default:

The first of which is a small sum with an 'account start date' of 29.10.2007

- this date pertains to the date at which a purchase was made.

This is being shown on Noddle as in in Default (D) every month of this year.

The debt collection agency has written to me but I have not acknowledged their letters nor calls.

They have apparently applied a default date of 29.06.2009 - some 2 years after the credit was obtained.

 

The second of which is again with a DCA, the 'date of default' is 10.05.2010

and on Noddle only one default sign can be seen and

it pertains to August of 2013 (why is this date of default much later than the date of default in which it was originally raised i.e. 10.05.2010??)

 

In both of these debts I have not acknowledged these nor responded to letters.

 

What is the process surrounding a statute barred debt in these particular examples?

Why is the DCA updating the file each month with Defaults

when the original date of default as shown on the report is 29.10.2007 and 10.05.2010 respectively?

 

Account Start Date Date of Default Defaults (2013)?

29.10.2007 29.06.2009 Monthly

24.09.1996 10.05.2010 Sep only

 

The final debt is an unsecured loan taken via a bank on behalf of a partner who failed to pay me back.

 

Start Date Date of Default

01.11.2005 14.06.2009

The defaults are shown monthly. They have written to me 2 occasions since 2005 and I have not written back nor spoken to them.

 

Can anyone advise me on this? Any more information required please feel free to ask me.

 

Yours faithfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that the dcas have changed the original default date?

 

Double check and make sure its the default date and not the 'last updated' date that has been changed.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, the last updated date for all three things is recent, September 2013. The actual default dates for each of the things appears to have been a date added by the DCA, so the dates given in my original sequence appear sound. I could upload a screen shot perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

as advised

 

the debt will be statute barred 6yrs from the month after your last financial transaction [in/out]

or signed letter ack'ing that the debt is yours.

 

there is little 'linking' default dates on a CRA file to the statute barring date.

 

don't confuse the two.

 

updating of the defaulted date on a cra file is just that an update,

it should not ever change the original default date in the debt summary.

 

if you think the original default date is wrong..

 

[a default should be place within 6mts of your last payment]

 

then you need to address this issue with the original creditor, not any DCA

that might of brought the debt.

 

a debt will vanish from your CRA file on the original defaults 6th birthday, never to return

paid or unpaid.

 

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'm totally confused!

Debt claim 1: no actual transactions took place: no letters of acknowledgment were made. I believe the first payment should have been made a month after the purchase: ie November 2007.

Debt claim 2: pertains to an old overdraft from account used by ex partner set up in my name. There has been no letters or acknowledgment of the debt for at least 6 years since when the bank seemed to put it in default in 1995. But the DCA says its default from 10.05.2010???

Debt claim 3:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. so SB'd poss dec 2013

 

2.if the default is 1995 it should NOT even be showing.

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

debt 2?

 

so there is a defaulted date of 1995 on the cra file?

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

so where does 1995 come into this you are talking in riddles...

 

it this debt showing twice on the cra file then?

 

a dca cannot change a default date [are you sure this is not an updated ]

 

and a debt should not be listed twice on a cra file either.

 

if its an overdraft and YOU have not made any transactions in or out in over 6yrs

it will be statute barred

 

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

Thanks dx.

 

There is a field in noddle which says "account created date" and this pertains to 2005.

 

Having said this there has been no activity on said account for > 6 years so as per your advice it appears SB.

 

should I send a SB letter to the DCA informing them of this?

 

Their default date has a big red D for the month of sep 2013 so I present they are making things up here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes send the SB letter

 

that's just a default marker not a default

 

in the debt summary what is the defaulted date?

 

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

Defaulted dates are:

For the bank OD which has had no correspondence for over 6 years at the least, it says it is 10.05.2010.

A total fiction this, I feel the DCA has made this up

 

For the other one, they have said 29.06.2009

some 2 years after the account went into default in 2007.

 

Looks like the DCA are making dates up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

are you sure these are not updated dates and the summary default date is not earlier.

 

seems like they might be spoofing you

 

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

With certainty it's 6 years plus, wonder how I can determine this?

 

It's difficult over 6 years for sure. The great thing about a limitations argument is that once you've sent the letter , the onus is on the dca to demonstrate that the debt isn't over 6 years old. The ball's in their court, so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...