Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please take note: I got 2 tickets for 32  miles in a 30 zone on different days.  The police said its their policy to ticket anything over 30!!   I had to pay £100 for one and do the course as well.  Even as a disabled driver there was no give on the tickets. Please stop saying that it has to be 35+ it really does not. West Midlands police in Nuneaton so definitely dont go 1 mile over in that area.  
    • New figures from the Insolvency Service show that early termination rates of IVAs have dropped 11% in the past year, while total IVAs have risen by almost 20,000 in the past two years. View the full article
    • Amigo Loans has posted an £87m loss for the nine months to December 31 2020, a 289% drop on the same period in 2019 View the full article
    • I've had a brief look over the thread and I see that there principle point is that he didn't take out insurance. Your answer to this is very simple – that it is absurd that you are required to pay to protect them against their own negligence or criminality of their employees or the people who are acting for them – in this case, Hermes.Your point here is that any requirement that a customer is required to pay extra to protect against the breach of contract is unfair within the meaning of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. Please have a read of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. In In particular, after you have read the sections within the act itself, get a schedule two and you will see examples of unfair terms. These are nonexhaustive which means that they are simply examples and lots of others can be added. An important point is that it forms a significant imbalance between your interests and their interests. They are using a standard form contract which is nonnegotiable. There is no competition because all the courier industry are doing this so there is no opportunity for you to go elsewhere and get a different type of deal. You will need to point out to the defendant – through the mediator – that included in the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act is a provision that gives the court the power – in fact a duty – on its own initiative to examine the fairness or otherwise of any term. Point out to the defendant that if they want to go to court then you are happy about it. That you will then raise the question of unfairness to the judge and also you will invite the judge to look at the entirety of the contract and to pronounce on the fairness or otherwise of the contractual terms. Tell the defendant that you expect that the judge will decide unequivocally that a term of the contract which requires the customer to pay extra to protect themselves against the service providers breach of contract is grossly unfair – and in fact it is ridiculous. Basically they are saying "pay us to deliver your goods – and pay us extra if you don't want us to lose them."   Explain to the defendant that you are fully aware that this is a culture within the courier industry which has developed over 30 or 40 years or more but it's not acceptable and that when you get a judgement in your favour which confirms that the term is unfair, (as will surely happen) that you will then make sure that copies of the judgement find their way all over the Internet including social media that is concerned specifically with complaints against the courier industry and then the game will be up for the loss of them. One the mediator to tell the defendant that once you get this judgement, not only will people be claiming for ongoing lost items, but they will also be claiming retrospectively for legitimate claims which have been rejected on the basis of this unfair term. Make it clear to the mediator – that they should tell the defendant that you're not dealing with very much money here – and you are prepared to risk it all in order to go to court and to demonstrate this principle. If the mediator says that you should compromise then you should tell the mediator that if the defendant pays up in full – including costs and interest – that they will then be spared the problem of going to court and getting a judgement against them which will result in the loss of millions of pounds in the future. Tell the mediator that this is the benefit to the defendant and you are not prepared to hand them any further benefit if it means sacrificing a single penny of your claim. Tell the defendant to take it or leave it – you are happy either way.   It is very important that the defendant understands that you don't care either way whether you settle now mediation or goes to court. The defendant as a huge amount to lose if it goes to court. You have very little to lose  
    • Firstly I am disabled and have brain fog so can forget anything.  Today I went online to check when the MOT is due as just had to renew my car insurance and know it comes quickly after that. I was shocked to see my car was flagged as NOT TAXED.  I have had disability tax for years so dont even have to pay. After ringing DVLA I eventually found out papers had been sent to my old house which I left 3 years ago. With the stress of moving etc I never changed the car address but did change the address on my licence as that is correct.   Now I am worried I may have picked up a speeding ticket sometime in the 3 years and also maybe recently on a day trip to London (2 miles too fast coming out a tunnel). The old house is 150 miles away so cant pop in and no idea who lives there now. Thats how I got caught out with tax as they sent the paperwork there to renew. The lady renewed the tax easily on the computer for me which I was so grateful for and backdated it to 1 Feb. Can anyone tell me how I can find out if there are any tickets out there in my name that I know anything about please? I have had a really awful week with so many problems and this is now really making me feel sick so dont want to worry for months to catch up with me.   Thanks  
  • 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

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 2687 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...