Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • This sites getting less and less accessible every week   Got my vaccination invite over weekend   despite living on the edge of a large town with a number of other large towns just a few miles away in various directions, and a 'university' city only 8 miles away, nearest center with any vaccines is about a 10 mile drive away in a small village. Interesting that the maps link showing you the locations for my nearest (sic) vaccination points are wrong - this is from the NHS vaccine booking site.   Once you have selected a location to see when vaccinations are available, it also wont let you go back to select another location, and if you just close the page down (without booking) and open the site again and put in your identification data, its gives you a 'you have failed to attend and will have to book both appointments again' message - despite not booking anything. - wonder if thats how they've counted 20 million vaccinations?   Checked with 3 local surgeries including my own asking why none of them are an option and two haven't had any vaccines for over a week and haven't even been able to book all their own vulnerable for a vaccine, other has vaccine but is only booking its own priority people   Makes me think the claim of 20 million vaccinated is complete and utter 'Johnson      
    • there is a difference.........   pass = IGNORE a DCA (we write on behalf of our client xxx bank etc)   SELL = the original creditors issues a default notice, then latterly sells it on..if that happens there must be something seriously WRONG with a debt of + £10K if they do...won't happen IMHO. (you will get a Notice of Assignment - stating xxx bank etc have now sold the debt to us)   TBH: the quicker you get the pro rata plan running, the quicker the OC's might issue default notices (but not sell) and the quicker those DN's reach their 6th Birthday..... when the whole debt vanishes from your credit file preventing you from moving forward again...doesn't mean the debt is not still owed, just that prospective creditors can't see the debt anymore.   ok it's a 6yrs plan as such, but if you were to be honest to yourself, things are not going improve any in the short term so it's better to take control of YOUR money now and plan well ahead rather than worrying forever.   dx          
    • Hey,   I was hoping for a bit of help with a really old Talk Talk debt and BW Legal.   The debt is from 2014. I'm not sure that it qualifies as statute barred? I haven't heard off them for years, but within the past 6 months or so, they've been sending me their standard debt collection letters and emails. I have just ignored them and I haven't formally acknowledged the debt. However, recently they've been threatening to issue court proceedings, so I thought I would like to try and get them sorted out.   Am I right in thinking that this type of debt it an unregulated debt? As in it wouldn't be covered by the Consumer Credit Act? If that is the case, is there any precedence for doing a SAR request to ask for a copy of an agreement to provide their services? I am assuming that they would rely on some sort of original agreement between myself and Talk Talk to provide services?   Would It be worth doing a DSAR instead?   I am familiar with doing SARs for consumer debt, like loans and cards, but I haven't done one for a utility debt. Would someone be able to point me in the right direction please?   Many thanks 😀
    • Particular Of claim   1. By an agreement between Lloyds Banking Group & the defendant on or around 13/05/2003 (“the agreement”) Lloyds Banking Group agreed to loan the defendant monies.   2. The defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due. The agreement was terminated following service of a default notice.   3. The agreement was assigned to the claimant.   4. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS: 1) £8704.42 2) COSTS     Defence   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claims are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) – failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is admitted that the claimant has sent details of a current account with an unknown account number but has no connection to this this claim or alleged debt. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the details of alleged debt the claimant refers to nor have they referred to any account number within its particulars. I have therefore sought clarity from the claimant and requested further in formation which at this time they failed to comply to my request.   3. Paragraph 2 is noted. However, as above the alleged debt is still unknown and further I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.   4.Paragraph 3 is noted. As above as the debt is unknown its immaterial and I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.   5. On receipt of this claim I sent CPR 31.14 and section 77 request. The claimant has failed to comply with either requests and in particular my section 77 request and provide a valid copy of the agreement and therefore remains in default of my request and is prevented from enforcing the agreement they wish to rely on.   7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice/Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.               1. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.   2. However, I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.
    • the court should have written to you acknowledging your defence filing?   dx  
  • 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 2690 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...