Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I arranged the delivery of a set of drum kit wood shells with hermes, I booked directly online. They have told me the item is lost 70x50x55 cm box??? They asked me to fill in a claim form which I have done i declared a value of £300 for the parts sent and paid for extra cover. I had recently purchased the whole drum kit for £650 and shipping costs of £95.00 to get them to me. After investigating the cost of replacing the shells, not a direct equivalent but similar, it will cost around £450.00 with delivery. I want to get compensation over the £300, is that possible, i have informed them of the total loss with delivery costs, prior to shipping with Hermes as £745. I am more than happy to go to the small claims court for the difference but would it be dismissed, Should I go for the full cost of the loss or the cost of replacement shells only I have all the receipts for the drums and shipping costs prior to hermes losing my items. I still have the remaining parts that a pretty much worthless now, unless i get a new set of drum shells. Its probably going to to take ages, I've written to CEO of Hermes about my complaint as well just to cover all bases. Next stop will be the small claims court as i read they pull delay tactics and low offers. They really didnt care and also didn't seem surprised when i spoke to a service agent.
    • Hi all I used to be a member here a few years ago when I went through a bad time - husband and I had bad health, both lost jobs etc, we got the usual helpful and sympathetic response from the bank.   With the help of CAG I did my best to fight back and found that some debts were legally unenforceable as well as the usual defective defaults and everyting else the banks were doing wrong. We're going back to about 2009/10.   With HSBC they refused to provide a SAR/CCA because I wouldn't provide a signature that matched their records. I remember I took the advice from CAG at the time NOT to sign.  in any case, due to my injury I was unable to do anything except scrawl. I told them that I didn't think the SAR required a signature and in abny case I couldn't. In short they refused to cooperate, there as a series of letters but they cited the DPA, at which point I pointed out that they were sending me demands, statements and theatening letters but only now were they saying they had to verify my ID (at that point, the bank said that they wouldn't send any more statements/demands etc until my Id could be confirmed (seriously, you couldn't make it up). I also pointed out that the guidance from the ICO was that if they were responding to the address they has on record and was the usual contact address, they could assume it was their customer writing to them. I even complained to the ICO who, as usual took the bank's side.   Eventually, I said to the bank that if they were unable to give me details of the alledged debt then I was unable to consider their demands and verify the situation and I wouldn't correspond with them any more and they could go to court if they liked. But, if they did lodge court papers, and sent the statements etc I'd immediately complain to the ICO that they hadn't verfied my ID acording to their own procedures (something the ICO had agreed was required), and I'd bring it to teh attention of teh court that they had deliberately not sent me the data to allow it to be resolved one way or teh other. If they didn't send the stuff through discovery, I'd lodge an embarassed defence and ask for it to be struck out as I had been asking for the records for 6 months or more.  I didn't hear any more from them, that was in March 2011.   In Nov 2015 I got a letter from Hoist Portfolio Holdings 2 Ltd that they has been assigned the rights from MKDP LLP and giving bottom Robinson Way's address. I hadn't heard of MKDP before and simply ignored it. I certainly wasn't aware it had be assigned to them in the first place.   A few days ago, I got a letter from Hoist again asking for payment. I intended to ignore it except for a letter I got from the Bank this morning.   The letter is the same one that has been mention on here very recently, a refund from the bank for £25 because they had determined I hadn't recived the correct level of service (no sh*t Sherlock!) The account number is NOT my currect account. It MAY be my credit card, but I seem to remeber they were rolled into one. I don't seem to have any correspondence about the CC, and I destroyed all paper documents a few months ago. All I have is scanned copies of letters (which may not be a complete record, but should be).   I received a letter in Nov 2017 from PRA about another CC saying the debt has been assigned to them (no letter of assignment from the creditor) and in Jan 2018 an 'Annual Statment'. Since then, nothing.   I've made a point of ignoring these kind of letters and demands in the past belieivng they were SB and eventually the data would be destoyed. After a few years of actually being able to relax, I'm now worried that the aggro is all going to start up again with this HSBC and other accounts.   Now, the questions. it is/was my understanding that the debts became Statute Barred a few years ago and they couldn't be enforced. The CC default was issued Feb 2009. A month later a Final Demand was issued for both current AC and CC giving a combined total. (that total is similar to the one sought by Hoist which gives my currect AC number).   So, are these accounts SB? If they are SB and the bank has desposed of them by assignment to someone, why do they still have my name and enough details of my correspondence to determine they didn't behave correctly? Does the DPA not require them to destroy data after 6 years?   On the same DPA note, it seems that this account is simply being passed around from one **** bag bottome feeder to another (maybe teh same one under different names), again, why is data still being processed after 6 years? Am I doomed to be persistely pursued by these scumbags until I die? Or am I worng? Are they able to process data as long as they like, even when there has been no contact for years?              
    • We are not offended. But we try to give you advice all the way and you seem to want to go your own way including hiding the identity of the breeder – for whatever reason, I can't possibly fathom – except that during the time that you have been hiding their identity, other animals presumably may have been at risk and other purchasers also may have had difficulty. Had you posted the identity of the breeder here, people might have stumbled on this information and become aware. It seems to me absolutely normal that if you start taking advice from somebody then you stick with it. We are not offended, but is a bit frustrating to feel that we are putting effort into helping you – but in fact you are off doing your own thing and not necessarily in your best interests. Anyway, you've sent a 28 day letter so you have to stick with it. You say you haven't done this kind of thing before so you need to read around and find out the steps involved in taking a small claim in the County Court. Now you have a decision as to whether to look at the advice we give here on that or go to Which? or whoever else you may have been consulting. One of the problems about having gone to Which? is that although they have effectively given you a letter of claim to copy out which gives 28 days before taking legal action, they didn't explain to you that 28 days wasn't necessary and that the pre-action protocol only requires 14 days. So you came away from them not really understanding the whole story and the choices you had. I'm afraid I was find it very frustrating that these organisations which purport to inform and empower consumers don't tell them the whole story.   The reason why Which? gives this kind of softer advice is because they don't want to alienate themselves from corporate interests and they don't want to seem to be to pushy. Unfortunately we have found over 15 years that in order to assert your rights properly, you need to be pushy. The County Court papers are the great Equalizer between you and all sorts of commercial interests including huge multinationals. Still, let's see maybe your breeder will respond within 28 days with something satisfactory. However, you better be prepared and ready to take the next step – if you know what that is
    • Well it sounds like a breach of contract which has substantially deprived the purchaser of the entire benefit of the contract – which amounts to a breach of condition which means that the contract can be treated as terminated. After that  section 75 consumer credit act   See if there has been any communication with the finance company. Send them an SAR – do it now.
    • I didn't realise there was much difference, this is my first time doing anything like this so maybe a bit ignorant. Sorry for any offence caused.
  • Our picks

Erudio using state benefits, refuse deferement, i want to go to court over this


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1990 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

Hi all,

 

i am wondering if you can help me.

 

Ive had the most distressing phone call with an advisor from Eurdio.

 

I was completing my deferment application and become quite concerned

when I came to section 9 which asked for gross total income including state benefits.

 

I currently receive rent that is heavily subsidised by housing benefit as I rent privately,

I receive some council tax benefit, child and working tax and child benefit.

 

My wages are only £900 per month but when I added the above benefits my gross total income was above their £2398 threshold for deferment.

 

I contacted them to see if the above benefits were included in what they considered my gross income and I was told that they were.

 

I tried to explain that the above were means tested

that were used to help me pay my rent which is £1400 per month (I live in London)

and my childcare

and that I could not see how these could be used.

 

They said that they had a list of all benefits that could be used in their calculations

and that both housing benefit, child tax credits and child benefits could be.

 

Is this right?,

 

I have complained and will escalate to ombudsman if necessary

Things are so tight for me at the moment I cant deal with another bill.

 

Please help

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think you may misunderstand,

 

I have never earned enough so have always deferred.

 

This new company which has just taken over from the student loans complany

now include things like my housing benefit in my gross income

and so I would have to start repaying

whereas under the old system would have been discounted.

 

Is there any one with any expertise in this area,

specifically can housing benefit be classified as part of my gross income when it is awarded to pay my rent.

 

Any help much appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Err no i dont mis understand at all.

If you dont wish to repay then you dont have to. No matter what this company say

 

So stop thinking that this company can tell you what to do, i told SLC to go do one years ago and if they had issue then to issue a CCJ, my initial loan was in in 1996.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice not really helpful to me as I spent years rebuilding my credit rating

and getting myself out of debt and do not want a CCJ issued against my name.

 

As I said what I really need to know is if the means tested benefits

 

I have referred to can really be considered as part of my gross income

or how I can challenge this as im sure there are going to be many people in my position.

 

Anyone......

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO they are not.

 

just remember, Erudio, are a DCA

they will say anything on the phone they like

 

they are not BAILIFFS and have nosuchLEGAL POWERS.

 

stay OFF that phone to them.

 

when did you take the loan out?

 

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

Hi

I took out the loans between 1998 & 2001,

the only reason I contacted them was to find out if state benefits were included in what they referred to as ones gross income.

 

They confirmed that they would use awarded housing benefit, child and work tax credit and child benefit as persons gross income,

this would not be disregarded but added to my earnings of £900.

 

I just want to know what to do and

 

can they do this,

I mean tax credits and housing benefit award me money to pay my rent and childcare costs not pay off my old student loan.

 

PLease help, what is my legal position with regards to this matter

 

Many thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that they could take me to court as I have been acknowledging the debt

and as I said I do not want my credit rating that I have worked so hard to restore jeopardised!

 

If there are any benefits, cab workers or solicitors on here what would be their view

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabby, you are in good hands with dx's advice. If you had been defering with SLC and your circumstances were the same then the same applies to DCA.

 

If they call you .... Simply say "Please only communicate in writing in all future correspondence" ... and put down phone.

Remember, they are a Debt Collection Agency (DCA) and they will lie, deceive and swindle you. Do not trust a word they say.

 

PS: They cannot take you to court as they are not the original creditor nor can they take a CCJ either for the same reason.

 

PPS: Play hard with them and do not let them force you into making payments just state "I have been defering with SLC under the same circumstances therefore you are breaking the original terms and conditions of the contract and i shall be reporting you to the relevant authorities".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your response but im not finding that your advice is helping as there is no legal ground to it, so I would appreciate responses from people who can tell me what my legal position is rather than saying just don't pay it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

on the deferment form they ask for bank statements, bank details and proof of benefits

and earning much like the SLC did

but this new company don't disregard benefits as the old SLC did

Link to post
Share on other sites

So could I write and say that they are breaking the term of the SLC contract.

 

The other thing that I am concerned about is that the SLC had a direct debit details

would Erudio now have these and would they be able to take from my account?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if you had been defering then you continue to defer. If they start taking money from your account without your express consent they will be breaking the law.

 

Sabby, can i suggest that you google or even look at the DCA section of CAG and you will see that they have little power or authority, although they may try to lie to you otherwise. ....Knowledge is power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had been deferring with SLC on an annual basis and needed to complete deferment forms along with proof of earnings and benefits.

 

So are you saying that the SLC sold this onto a DCA and they (Eurdio) cannot go about collecting the money in the same way in which the student loans company did?

 

And knowing this why did eurdio buy such a huge debt knowing they had no powers to collect?

 

Thanks for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

cancel the SLC DD

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

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...