Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Are we to assume that the asthma is not new and your employer fully infomed about this. 
    • right so you being abroad or informing SLC you were Abroad as the last address plays no part in this at all, thread title updated. total red herring.   your case is the same as numerous ones here already which you need to READ  type in erudio backdoor CCJ in our enhanced google searchbox. get reading a good few of the threads that search points you too.   your mistake is you returned to the uk, you failed to update your debt owners of a change of address as legally you are obliged too, and you got a backdoor CCJ.    your issue now again is the same as most of the threads you'll read, your SLC loans were last deferred to SLC before the gov't sold them to erudio in 2013. that means that the court claimform was issued more than 6yrs after your last written acknowledgement of the debt and thus was already statute barred.   can't see any point in an SAR to anyone.   just ring northants bulk and quoting the CCJ number from your credit file ask for a copy of the particulars of claim ANd the judgement CCJ by email pdf   dx  
    • and neither can drydens hence their twaddle.  and you need to remember that places like cab and ndl etc are funded by the banks and the DCA's in commission payments for signing people up to dmp's without ever questioning the debts enforceability under the cca 1974.   your n244 already has the background..   The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.        
    • there is alot of twaddle in that template appeal letter that originates in paragraphs of various letters found on many alternate websites heavily into common law,  FmOtL and sovereign state stuff. i suspect that, luckily, any successes to date came about because of the other correct arguements it has merged into it.   the classic signs of their incorrect arguments always revolve around:   intimating that speculative invoices are somehow a PENALTY Charge, thus anything the PPC does wrong will suddenly become a serious ILLEGAL Criminal matter in a magistrates court, a bigger stick to hit them with.   Sadly PPC's and any kind of compliance issues under UTCCR and CRA 2015 consumer codes are only unlawful, a Civil matter in the county court and the authorities that would be involved in such compliance issues, the FCA, the FOS and the ICO have never got involved in any private parking matters to date. There is also no evidence of any code non compliance ever being legally tested nor playing any part in any of the county court PPC success cases to date. their need for code compliance is a total red herring.   the other classic give away is the same spelling mistakes in all versions - like weather not whether.   can you post up the answers to our template questions as text here not a docx ...thankyou.
    • Hi   This also bring into question exactly what Risk Assessment was carried out by your Employer before and during these works for the Employees working in that environment during these ongoing works.   If they ever did try the disciplinary route due to your asthma attacks the one thing I would be asking for is that Risk Assessment that was carried out before and during the refurbishment works
  • Our picks

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...