Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The new Credit 500, an index of the most influential people in consumer and commercial credit in 2022, has been finalisedView the full article
    • The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is to launch two market studies and gather further information to investigate access to wholesale dataView the full article
    • I unexpectedly had a couple of hours free this afternoon and thought I would have a bash at helping simeon drafting his counterclaim.  Everybody please feel free to comment on and - hopefully improve it!  (In particular I am not sure if I've got the terminology correct vis a vis counterclaimant and defendant - so that may need correcting).   I am aware that Andyorch and BankFodder often stress the importance of keeping POCs to the bare minimum so as not to give away your case too much.  Whether I've given too much detail - or not enough - here, I don't know.  As I say, it's free to be pulled apart, but simeon seems to have nothing else.   Paras 1 - 16 (in black typeface) are simply a precis based on what has gone before and I've used them to put the counterclaim in context. Paras 17 - 19 (in red typeface) are simply my attempt to provide a basis for simeon's counterclaim.   At the end of the day this is simeon's documant - nobody else's.  simeon has to satisfy himself that it is both accurate and true, and also says what he wants it to say.  He will also have to order and sort out any attachments.  As I said earlier, I'm NOT giving legal advice!   Here goes... ===================================================================================================== Counterclaim   1.      The defendant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.     2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the counterclaimant and that the defendant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the counterclaimant provided the defendant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the defendant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.     5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the defendant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the defendant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The defendant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the defendant asked the counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The defendant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the defendant’s work but the defendant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the defendant's work.  The inspector spoke to the defendant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the defendant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The defendant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the counterclaimant of £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).     11.  The defendant asked if the counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project1, the counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.     12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the defendant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the defendant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the counterclaimant agreed to pay him £2000 on 18 August 2020.    14.  The counterclaimant subsequently paid the defendant  £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.     15.  It later came to the counterclaimant’s attention that the defendant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the counterclaimant’s property that the counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the defendant admitted he had done this.  The counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   16.    On 21 September 2020 the counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the defendant (Attachment 2).  Over a month later the defendant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Attachment 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the defendant.     17.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the defendant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at Attachment 4.   18.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the defendant also negligently caused substantial damage to the counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Attachment 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   19.  The counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the defendant to pay to the counterclaimant the sum of £nnnnnnn {Simeon - put in the actual total amount here} in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the defendant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete; (b)   the cost of completing work the defendant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the defendant and referred to in para 18 above; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 15 above.   A receipt in respect of item (a) - see Attachment 1 - and two priced quotes in respect of items (b) and (c) - see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.     =================================================================================================================   What I'm not entirely clear about are two points.   First, it's not 100% clear to me whether simeon can properly claim the £3300 in paras 10 and 19(a) or not.  What I mean is, simeon is arguing that this work required by his structural engineer was always within the agreed scope of Project 1.  But it's not clear to me if it was within scope or whether it was entirely new and unforeseen work.  As I see it simeon can only counterclaim this amount from the builder if it had already been incuded in Project 1.   Second, the basis of the counterclaim still seems extraordinarily thin to me.  Is it sufficient at this stage just to allege that the builder caused any damage negligently and is therefore liable to pay to put it right.   That's it from me I think...    
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this 'clone firm'.View the full article
    • Better.com boss Vishal Garg took time off after his handling of mass job cuts sparked outrage.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Link Financial / student loan 1991


WulfrunSlade
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2862 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 took a top up student loan in the last year of grants/first year of phasing in of student loans.

 

Due to not earning enough through my early employment career, I deferred, and deferred, made the odd payment here and there.

I was made redundant in 2005 and was unemployed for nearly 2 years,

during which I had a lot of debt sorted out through the CAB. SLC didn't agree to any arrangement.

 

Fast forward to December 2012/January 2013 and

 

I get a letter from Link Financial, unfortunately I haven't got a copy of this,

but they definitely passed themselves off as acting officially on behalf of SLC.

 

Not wanting to be falling in to debt problems again

- and particularly with a government endorsed organisation

- I phoned Link Financial, initially demanding that the debt be handed back to the SLC,

eventually coming to a £50/month payment arrangement with Link, which is taken via a debit card.

 

I have obviously now learned that Link are, shall we say, somewhat of a rogue outfit, who resurrect bad debts to fill their own coffers.

 

Is there anything I can do now that I have actually made an arrangement with them?

 

I just received an arrears letter today which triggered research that lead me to this forum,

 

and a while ago I received a similar arrears letter,

which was a bit scary as I hadn't missed a payment,

 

tried to call them on their 0843 (or similar) and put in their queueing system for 45 minutes,

and hung up before I spoke to anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear....

 

ok we need a full history year by year please

 

have you got all the statements and paperwork?

 

if not

 

an SAR to SLC is in order here me thinks.

 

shame you got spoofed by them

esp on the phone! into paying up!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be sending link a cca request ASAP

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear....

 

ok we need a full history year by year please

1991/92 3x top up loans (one each term) taken out, total value approx. £1,200

Through the next 13-14 years deferred/occasional payment made to SLC

2005 - redundancy, CAB consulted about various debts, no arrangement made with SLC

June 2005-April 2007 unemployed, no further correspondence with SLC, no payments made

April 2007 - December 2012, no further correspondence with SLC, no payments made

June 2012 successfully applied for a car loan (first credit obtained since unemployment, no reference made to previous addresses that SLC would have known about on credit application)

December 2012 or January 2013 received letter from Link Financial - definitely passing themselves off as acting officially on behalf of SLC and the usual threats described elsewhere on this forum. I 'phoned them as I didn't want this hanging over me and now with means to pay I offered £50/month to get them off my case. Initially they rejected this and asked for a statement of earnings, etc., I persisted with "this is all I can afford", and eventually they accepted.

 

 

have you got all the statements and paperwork?

Unfortunately not, I have the most recent (received today) arrears letter, I really wish I had kept the original letter. Despite having paid around 14x £50 the account arrears is still £1,001 - feasible I suppose with SLC adding (even low rate) interest across a decade or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if there was a period of 6yrs whereby you did not defer

or contact slc by letter for 6yrs

 

this debt was STATUTE BARRED

 

before link got ahold of you

 

looks like you are being FLEECED by link

 

on a debt that statute barred

 

sadly VERY typical behaviour for them

esp on the phone!!

 

stop payments

 

demand those that you have made back.

 

this is what you are paying for:

 

http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/news/millionaire-debt-collector-digs-deep-south-Kensington

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good to me.

 

Has my naivety in paying them something over-ruled the statute barred?

 

How do I go about asking for the money back and what are the pitfalls, obstacles, etc., past history of this company in paying back anything in a timely manner, if at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you cant reset the SB status

once sb'd it cant be undone.

 

be sure of your dates.

 

if there is a clear 6yrs then once again

you are another victim of links profiteering.

 

sadly that how 75% of dca's earn their money

they spoof people into paying stuff off that's prob never even owed

 

goes directly to their pocket

 

so they can send and make 1000'000's of spoof calls/letter to fleece others.

 

wanna laugh...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404523-Hello-from-Ireland-Student-Loan-Dilema-amp-Link-Financial-have-lead-me-here.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't easy reading for an early Saturday evening.

 

I'll be honest, I just don't want to pay for anymore lavish trappings for the Burdells luxurious lifestyle,

whilst I have had to graft damn hard to have got this far in life.

 

To confidently stop paying them any more would be enough,

getting anything back would be a considerable bonus.

 

One thing did spring out at me.

 

I was also asked by Link in a phone call (must have been May/June 2013, as it was a "6 month review"),

as I hadn't provided them an attachment of earnings they wanted me to increase my payments to £100/month.

 

I argued the toss with her that I was already paying the maximum I could afford (or even slightly more than I could really afford)

and no way could afford to pay double that.

 

She said she would have to speak to her supervisor, and put me on hold (it was their call, by the way, I didn't call them),

after a few minutes she came back and said that the supervisor has agreed that you can continue with payments of £50/month.

 

Checking their docs sent today right now:

 

Headed "Notice Of Sums In Arrears"

 

Loan agreement under Account Number: ##HMBC#####

Our ref: #####

Balance at date of this notice: £1,001.72

 

This notice is given in compliance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974

because you are in arrears with your payment under this agreement.

 

Arrears on balance at 26/08/2013: £1,284.52

 

27/08/2013 Balance Brought Forward £1,284.52

31/08/2103 Interest Debit £3.47 Balance £1,287.99

06/09/2013 Credit £50.00 Balance £1,237.99

and so on to

27/02/2014 Balance Carried Forward £1,001.72

 

(Total payments £300.00, total interest approx. £16.50, I haven't added it up as I don't want to open a spreadsheet on a Saturday)

 

Continuing:

 

Arrears £1,001.72

 

The current arrears represents the outstanding balance as you have failed to maintain payments in accordance

with the terms of the original agreement so the full amount has become due.

 

If you have not already done so, we would encourage you to contact us to discuss the state of your account.

 

Default sums and interest

 

You may have to pay default sums and interest in relation to the missed or partly made payments referred to in this notice

(in addition to any default sums and interest included in this notice).

 

Please contact us if you would like further details.

This notice does not include any payments received after the date of this notice.

 

Notices

 

For so long as you continue to be behind with your payments by any amount,

you will be sent notices about this at least every six months.

 

We are not required to send you notices more frequently than this,

even if you get further behind with your payments in between notices.

 

They have the cheek to include some info about arrears from the Office Of Fair Trading...

 

So, what's my case exactly here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you definitely had no contact with SLC or Link from 2005 to 2012 then the debt is statute barred and nothing you may or may not have done since can change that.

 

First step is to stop all future payments.

 

You will need to contact your bank and remove authority for Link to take money from your debit card - best to do that in writing. Y

 

ou then need to write to Link along the lines of

 

'it has come to my attention that this account was in fact statute barred before Link made contact with me.

In the circumstances I will not be making any further payments and have instructed my bank to cancel the authority to take payments from my debit card.'

 

What else you write depends on whether you want to try to get your money back,

which may not be entirely straightforward since Link are bound to say you paid willingly on a debt that still exists,

statute barred or not (unless you're in Scotland, then it doesn't exist).

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems fairly straightforward, thanks madwoman.

 

Let's forget about claiming back for the moment and concentrate on stopping future payments without further hassle.

 

Would we expect that Link will contest the debt is statute barred,

 

somehow muddying the waters with some wordy meaningless but authoritative/legal sounding jargon,

and quite probably the introduction of "CCJ" (they may have done this already in the original letter) to matters?

 

Let's say that the debt is not statute barred

(obviously further down the line I will need to establish this as described elsewhere and advised above).

 

I'd be liable to pay up and with their interest, etc.,

because I have an "Agreement" with them (pretty sure I've never sent them anything, signed anything).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can pretty well tell you 100% that it WILL be SB'd

 

you are one of p'haps 10'000's of people they regularly do this too.

 

even started a company called thesis, to cover their tracks.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, first of you are in good hands with dx and reallymadwoman.

 

Right so you lost your job in 2005 and attempted to negotiate with SLC,

 

did you defer during this period?

 

Remember that the last time you defered is NOT the start date for the six year SB clock as your deferment will last for 12 months

and it will be from 12 months after that you will be in default.

 

Also, what kind of negotiation did you undertake as this too could be interpreted as "Acknowledgement" and therefore restart the six year clock also.

 

Are you aware of the SLC taking a CCJ against you as this is a nasty trick they play which will again restart the six year clock

meaning that in theory it can be upto 12 years before the debt is unrecoverable.

 

Remember that as regards payments already made, payments made under duress do not in any way constitute acknowledgement of a debt as has already been proven in court.

 

SAR to slc to see what has gone on in your account over the years and if a ccj was taken against you.

CCA to DCA and do NOT sign, both of which dx and RMW have already advised you should do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as post 1

 

2005 - redundancylink3.gif, CAB consulted about various debts, no arrangement made with SLC

 

June 2005-April 2007 unemployed, no further correspondence with SLC, no payments made

 

April 2007 - December 2012, no further correspondence with SLC, no payments made

 

June 2012 successfully applied for a car loan (first creditlink3.gif obtained since unemployment,

no reference made to previous addresses that SLC would have known about on credit application)

 

December 2012 or January 2013 received letter from Link Financial

- definitely passing themselves off as acting officially on behalf of SLC a

nd the usual threats described elsewhere on this forum.

 

I 'phoned them as I didn't want this hanging over me and now with means to pay I offered £50/month to get them off my case.

 

Initially they rejected this and asked for a statement of earnings, etc.,

I persisted with "this is all I can afford", and eventually they accepted.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks dx, it does indeed then appear to be S.B. and a legitimate cause for complaint and monies paid returned. Link should have been offering deferment as OP was unemployed and they extorted £50, which according to original loan agreement is ilegal.

 

So a complaint to relevant organisation and demand for return of monies paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have been busy with new born twins, but I will be writing to Link - phoning them is a waste of time and money and anything said means not a lot.

 

As I said, first aim is to stop paying them any more. If successful, I may well look in to getting several hundred quid back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...