Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Here's something I'm hoping to clarify before I get in trouble for it:   There is a street close to where I live that was transformed into a temporary Pedestrian and Cycle Zone due to a school that's there. I know I can't enter it during those times, but can I be fined for having my car parked on that street while the zone is active? So far I have only heard one interpretation, from my neighbour, who said you can have your car parked there and you can exit the zone while it is operational, oddly enough, but before I take her word for it I want to get some more opinions on the matter.   For reference, here is what the Council's own website states: "It is an offence to enter or drive in an active school Street without a valid school street permit." (emphasis mine) Would this prove my neighbour right or can they still find a different interpretation to it that would carry the risk of a fine if I park my car there?   The sign for the zone is very similar to the image attached below, only different operating times.   Edit: to clarify, there are permits you can apply for if you actually live on that street, but I'm just outside that area. Also, there are no other parking restriction on the road that would apply.  
    • good i can see where you got that from  pers i'd put back, suitable adapted the line:   3.Throughout this period XXX only ever served estimated bills which were grossly over estimated with values unrelated to actual use. There was and still remains an unresolved dispute with XXX which was never resolved prior to the assignment of the alleged debt.
    • Hi Mr S,   Read other threads here posted over the last year or so.   We pretty much advise the same thing - ignore demands from the gym, their admin company, any DCA they use and any legal firm they use.   No need to engage with the gym or admin company to discuss or argue your wish to cancel - it'll get you nowhere.   If you want to leave the gym now, just give a month's written notice then cancel the DD m,andate .   If you want to cancel from October 2021, confirm this to the gym in writing early October, allow the final DD to be taken in October, then cancel the DD mandate.   You'll see from other threads that no action is taken to claim money and gym m/ships do not affect your credit records.
    • Update on the situation:   Following the run in with the police he has actually gone to the police station himself to question what he was told and was told there is no issue with him idling or moving the car around the car park, so the police officers who told him that were wrong.   As a side note, he knows who it is that's reporting him. Seems to be a bit of a feud between them, but the clarification he got from the police should at least stop them coming around every time a report is made.   Thank you to everyone who replied to this question!
    • I have had another good look around but still struggled to find any templates. I did find a defence on a thread that I have adapted below. I would greatly appreciate some input before I file it. Again, many thanks in advance.   Defence   1. I the Defendant contends that the particulars of claim 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 particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   2. It is admitted that I have had a supply and service agreement with Co-operative Energy in the past. During the period, Co-operative Energy actively blocked me from hanging to a cheaper tariff or switching provider as there was an outstanding balance on the account.   3. Throughout this period Co-operative Energy served estimated bills. This is shown in the one copy of a bill that the claimant has been able to provide. The claimant has given no details as to the full breakdown of their claim and what dates it relates to, so I am unable to defend specifically until the claimant can particularise and quantify its pleadings.   4. Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges are now over 12 months old and relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging.   5. The claimant does not have access to the agreement nor was the Assignor required to retain a copy. Therefore their claim is unsubstantiated.   Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a written agreement.   1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement,  the original(s) should be available at the hearing along with a complete breakdown of how the charges accrued by date and amount.   With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: -   a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.   6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   7. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2731 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 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

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...