Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Ade,   Stop speaking to them by phone and keep contact in writing only, which you've said you prefer.   Send TT a SAR by post immediately. The data you get back should enable you to see what they think you owe, and how it's made up.   Also write to BW Legal confirming you dispute the alleged debt owed to TT and have written to TT seeking data, so BWL must stop demands until TT have replied to the SAR you've sent them.
    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
    • When I sadly lost my job a while back, i reportd it immpediately to DWP as you are supposed to, but didnt realise at the time that the day I reported to them was the day before I was paid out for the last month. I was actually paid extra whem I left as it was cheaper than redundancy fort the business and at the time it was a good financial move (so I thought).   I was paid on Fri 26th Jan, they paid me out 2 months in one go. I reported to DWP on the 22nd of Han that I was made unemployed, had the letters and evidence. As they spun the story, because of their assesment dates and that, my first payment was on the 1st May and reassured that it works the other way around. That when work starts again, if I dont actually receive money from the company during the assesment period, there wont be an issue as it balances up.   Can I believe this or was it another spun story? I'm concerned that as I'll be paid monthly, (Starting on the 15th paid on the last day of the month), assment ends on the 22nd. Tha they'll take that money into consideration.   I'm just concerned due to the disparity it would cause between 4 odd months I endured with zero income because of how their system works and whatever they ahe in place to counter at this end of the claim.   Anywa, it's just awonder.   Cheers,   Ade    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

my MBNA debt been through every DCA in the book - now link chasing


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2695 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I really do not see how it matters whether or not the debts are sold individually or in bulk as a 'portfolio'

 

If the bank declares them as bad and sells then at say 10p in the pound the remaining 90p in the pound is offset against profits and therefore corporation tax is not paid on that 90p in the pound.

 

That must limit the actions the purchaser can take particularly with regard to the civil court and reasonableness, as the saying goes 'what would the man on the Clapham Omnibus' think of the banks / debt collectors getting two bites at the cherry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As said all this has been argued many times and it does not have any practical merit, the bank sells the accounts, at a price then they write the debts off their books, the accounts are then assets of the debt purchaser for tax purposes.

The purchaser inherits the total account the obligations and rights so they can initiate court action/sell the account on again. but they can never change the original default date!!

The banks are selling delinquent accounts not bad debts in the sense you imply. Been proposed argued for many years by people looking for a way out and who can blame them but it just does NOT work.

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

I agree whether it be individual for £100 or bulk for £100000 surely the OC will still get their pound of flesh and not just the 10 or 20p in the pound that they sell them for in bulk.

 

I Think Brig its not the fact that we are looking for a way out of our obligations, I think what ncm is getting at is the fact that the OC is not just getting the 10 or 20p in the pound that they sell bulk debts for but also the fact that the purchaser can then still claim the whole amount which surely is IMMORAL

Edited by the tinkerman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Been proposed argued for many years by people looking for a way out and who can blame them but it just does NOT work.

 

Interesting - thank you.

 

Do you know if this argument has been tested in court, or just chewed over theoretically?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the "writing off" of a debt has a direct effect on the liability held by the bank, effectively the bank posts profits which are basically calculated by offsetting credits and debits against one another. As such, the account is effectively devalued for accounting purposes in a particular accounting period - all legal and above board.

 

However the defaulted account still has value and can be sold....in the same way a tangible asset can be devalued completely or amortised to a zero value, it still has value even though the balance sheet would correctly state that it has no value in the current period.

 

The defaulted account can then be sold to a Debt buyer, or another agent, or whoever, for whatever value is deemed appropriate between the parties, HMRC has no interest as it is effectively the sale of a depreciated or amortised asset, the tax implications have already been accounted for in the reporting of the Original Creditor

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Spamheed: I think I understand the financial arguments after your and the Brigs explanation.

 

I am coning at this from a different angle particularly with regard to the civil court and reasonableness, as the saying goes 'what would the man on the Clapham Omnibus' think of the banks / debt collectorslink3.gif getting two bites at the cherry.

 

Also I Asked Do you know if this argument has been tested in court, or just chewed over theoretically?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if we examined the moral and ethical arguments surrounding the behaviour of the Financial Institutions and the links between them and the DCAs without looking at the laws which governed them, I think the whole lot would be shut down and disassembled.

 

Maybe that's why the financial institutions include MPs and other senior politicians on their boards and it is this that leads me to believe that these board members will not allow their gravy train to become derailed

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think if we examined the moral and ethical arguments surrounding the behaviour of the Financial Institutions and the links between them and the DCAs without looking at the laws which governed them, I think the whole lot would be shut down and disassembled.

 

Maybe that's why the financial institutions include MPs and other senior politicians on their boards and it is this that leads me to believe that these board members will not allow their gravy train to become derailed

 

I agree that the lenders and the DCAs are totally immoral and have only contempt for the 'punter' and the Law.

However, the main differences between Criminal and Civil law are the burden of proof and that Civil Judges are supposed to take into account 'reasonableness' hence 'the what would the man on the Clapham Omnibus think' test.

Which is why I persist with my question has this been tested in court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

FAO A Moderator.

 

I have hijacked this thread and I apologise to both you and the OP GardenBench

 

Would it be possible and appropriate to move the offending posts and their answers to my Debt Questions thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387230-Debt-Questions./page2

 

P.S. I am going away for a week so the 'Big Guns' who bear the brunt of my P.I.T.A questions can breathe a sigh of relief ( well for a week at least) :whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bump

 

For most people this is probably the warmest and driest weekend for months so the volunteers are probably busy elsewhere.

The explanation it as said 6 years is considered ample time to start any court action, the feasibility

of starting any action would be tested at the time of any such proposed action.

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

I received an NoA from Arrow Global Guernsey Ltd for an alleged debt with MBNA.

 

I have played letter tennis with there ****** bottom feeding DCAs for a while now and I now want to send a Cease and Desist letter to their Company Secretary.

 

Thereby hangs the problem.

 

The NoA gives the address :-

La Plaiderie House,

La Plaiderie,

St Peter Port, Guernsey.

GY1 1WG

 

Their Web site says

Mailing address:

Arrow Global

Belvedere

12 Booth Street

Manchester M2 4AW

United Kingdom

 

Registered Office:

20-22 Bedford Row

London WC1R 4JS UK

 

 

The website also says

 

Following the buyout in January 2009, Arrow Global is now owned jointly by the RBS Special Opportunities Fund and management.No Company Secretary is listed in the corporate officers section

 

 

http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/arrow-global

says the Company Secretary Stewart David Hamilton

 

Address

 

ATTN OF MDD/DCC ASHURST LLP BROADWALK HOUSE 5 APPO

LONDON

UNITED KINGDOM

EC2A 2HA

141 other people also use EC2A 2HA in their address (this is probably a mail forwarding service address)

44 companies are also registered at EC2A 2HA

 

-----------

 

http://www.dellam.com/08200522-ARROW%20GLOBAL%20GUERNSEY%20LIMITED.html

 

Says the following :-

Date of Incorporation: 4 September 2012

Share Capital: £1

Registered Office: Flat 5, 241 Dickenson Road, Manchester, M13 0YW

Director Mohammad Afzal-6 September 2012

Registered Office changed on 6 September 2012 from

46 Mary Road

Handsworth

Birmingham

B21 0RH

 

HELP !

 

 

Sorry about the layout - cut and paste form various sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Brig, I have asked the moderator to move some posts from another thread to here

The Bump was to move it to the top form 5 pages down - to help the Mod find it.

 

However I do appreciate your reply

Do we have any past experience to know if judges allow such things and what criteria they use?

 

I am away nest week (I can hear your shouts of "Thank Goodness" from here) So arespite from the P.I.T.A questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are asking for the ''judgement of Solomon'' every case would be considered on its merits, and the fairness and reasonableness of the application to restart a case, in my experience it is rarely allowed and then only in exceptional circumstances.

 

To start an action on case where 6 years have elapsed since the cause of action (the default/closure of the account) would be treated similarly.

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

:-)

Like I said P.I.T.A questions.

 

But if you don't ask you don't find out.

How true, sometimes the answers are not what one wants to hear though!!:-)

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
 
 

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE Manchester address will get the letter to the right place you need to address it to the COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR.

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
Mr Mohammad Afzal is the Current Officer Name!

Compliance officer only? Not sure of his actual status.

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
THE Manchester address will get the letter to the right place you need to address it to the COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR.

 

 

Do a Google earth for that address - they cannot be serious

 

Just what sort of a tinpot organisation are we dealing with and have you compared it to their web site.

 

Something is very wrong here.

 

Arrow Global is now owned jointly by the RBS oh yes are we talking about the same company here ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

RBS but just a member company of the ''group'' not associated with the retail banking side in anyway.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...