Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

drydens '93 SLC loan with old CCJ 14+ years no contact


camdbug
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2800 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

FWIW there is little point in sending a DCA an SAR.

 

 

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

Yep, this has proven that ;)

 

But it does now seem like the original SAR to SLC has not made it, so at least I'm clear on that

and it looks like I'll get the money back from RM for the first one.

 

Will hopefully have more information in about 40 days!

 

Still heard absolutely nothing from Drydens so they're either prepared to wait or are taking the view

that if I'm doing things like this then they might find it hard to push the matter.

 

Either way, I'll update as/when anything else happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Camdbug - did you have any luck with the SAR to SLC?

 

 

I had the same phonecall / you've got 14 days to make contact with us letter.

 

 

Trying to work out my next step.

 

Thanks,

 

 

you need to start a new thread

 

 

of your own.

 

 

bottom line is stay off the phone and do not invite letter tennis

 

 

get a thread going

and tell us your history

 

 

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

  • 1 month later...

Finally received the SAR response from SLC yesterday. Got to be around 100 pages (although most is just screenshots of their system and statement details).

 

Copies of the original agreement and forms were included (very bad quality - from microfiche I suspect - but readable).

 

Have ordered everything and gone through it.

 

Their "Customer Activity Report" runs up until Spring 1998 then has nothing until the beginning of 2010 (will come back to this).

It contains no record of default notices sent and none were supplied in the copies of letters sent.

 

The legal department's 11 page "Matter History" commences in Autumn 1999.

it looks like they have no records of the first address change (to Ireland) I sent them,

with the result that when they applied for the CCJ they were doing it against an old UK address.

CCJ was granted early in 2000.

 

Although there is no copy/record of the CCJ itself, they do include the claim number from the courts.

They subsequently tried to request an oral examination in late 2000; again against the old address.

Not surprisingly this failed to take place as the courts were unable to serve the papers.

 

Rescheduled a number of times before ultimately failing

- I was of course totally unaware of all of this.

 

In early 2002 they contacted my mother requesting my current address,

which she gave to them (the Irish one I had already notified them about; of which there is no record).

 

They sent a letter in April 2002 to this address (which I recall)

simply requesting me to contact their office as soon as possible.

No mention of any of the above.

 

I responded by letter saying that I was about to move back to the UK (I moved back mid May 2002)

and gave them the new address there; there is no record of this.

 

They have records of account statements being generated but not sent;

which indicates that they knew the Irish address was no longer valid.

 

In Summer 2005 there is a curious entry stating "PWOUEF000 Identified as possible write-off"

which is then periodically repeated until Summer 2006 when it changed to "OLDCCJ000 Identified as possible write-off"

then immediately "PWOABR000 Identified as possible write-off", after which this does not appear any more.

 

After that they continue to apparently send letters according to their matter history,

but no copies of these letters were provided (last letter provided was the one to the Irish address asking me to contact them).

 

The "Customer Activity Report" includes an entry in early 2010 showing that they had located me again at my current address via Experian.

 

I had lived here fully registered and publicly since late 2006 and at another fully registered UK address for 18 months before that. Prior to that I was in Australia for just over a year.

 

The Matter History seems to reflect this change of address, but only shows the old address not my current one.

 

Only other entry of significance on the Matter History is a "Decide fate of account" entry in Autumn 2010 with no listed outcome.

Matter History ends in Autumn 2011.

 

Customer Activity Report has one final entry after the address change which is my recent request for a SAR.

 

That's it.

Virtually no details of the CCJ other than a copy of the text from a letter saying it had been granted containing the court/case reference.

 

Definitely nothing saying that it was transferred when they sold the loan.

 

Covering letter states that the loan had been sold on to Erudio earlier this year

and that I should contact them for any further info.

 

Due to the postal mess I had already done this,

nd Erudio returned absolutely nothing of any significance.

 

So... what do you think the next steps should be?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

sit on it.

 

theres so much there to work on if needs be and use it to your advantage I'm sure

should anything untoward happen.

 

bottom line I think is the CCJ absolutely dead.

 

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

  • 2 months later...

today I received another letter from drydensfairfax.

 

Interestingly there are no demands for payment and no threats.

 

Instead it is a financial questionnaire to work out a payment plan with phrases like

"we appreciate you may be struggling" and "understand that your present circumstances may be difficult".

 

I intend to ignore it for now as there are no threats.

 

They want the questionnaire returned by Feb 19th, so I'll wait and see what happens after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah ye old I&E sheet sounds like

 

none of their business!

 

only a judge can demand that info

 

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

Yep. That's it.

Along with copies of payslips, bank statements, proof of benefits etc.

 

 

Stupidly 2 days ago I was thinking that I hadn't heard anything in a while.

 

 

That was when they posted it! That'll teach me ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Latest letter today stating that they note I have not responded to the previous financial statement.

 

Giving me until 23rd March to respond otherwise they

"will have no alternative but to recommence steps to recover the full balance owed to our client."

 

Guess I'll expect to see another letter in about a week then...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Camdbug,

 

1.) Your old Student loans signed agreements no longer matter!?

 

Why?

 

2.) The CCJ wiped them and it is the CCJ that now is the debt. (just repeating so it registers, the fact that they are using original signed agreements to prove a non-existant debt shows, they know not which alleged debt they are attempting to chase.)

 

3.) No reference for CCJ, it should be 02XYJ09090 ie: if they fail to send reference for ccj then they do not know which "Alleged" debt they are pursuing.

3a.) Demand they produce the CCJ reference otherwise you recognise no "Alleged debt"

 

4.) Ask to see their application to the court for 'Redetermination'.? (They won't have done this since they have no idea or reference for the CCJ)

4a.) The result is as dx stated ealier the ccj is dead along with the "Alleged debt"

 

5.) Jog On Eurido or whatever you call them? .......parasites! :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

 

TBH it took me until I got the SAR response from SLC before I actually knew any details about the CCJ

(or even had any evidence that it existed and was related to the loan).

 

Even then it's primarily just evidence that they were granted a CCJ

(the ref number is probably in there somewhere but I still don't have a copy of the judgement anywhere).

 

I'm more curious at this stage about what they will try next.

I have not responded to them since I told them I was submitting a SAR to SLC, which was many months ago now.

 

I'm going to follow this path on dx's advice until I see something in writing that suggests there is something worth spending time and effort on.

.. as I, you, dx and others from various threads suggest,

 

there is nothing they can do now anyway,

 

but I shall update with the next instalment as it comes in :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

prob a discount letter

 

 

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

  • 4 months later...

Just thought I'd update as I hate threads that just stop without conclusion.

 

The update is: nothing.

 

Still waiting, nothing received.

 

Won't hold my breath that they've given up, in fact posting this probably means I'll get something tomorrow ;)

 

Trust me that if anything happens I'll post so silence means that I'm still safe from threats!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 3 months later...

Letters received today. Apparently erudio have passed it on to Capquest. Capquest; "please contact us".

 

Interestingly both letters arrived simultaneously, both with identical envelopes and both envelopes with identical return addresses.

 

Ho hum, starting again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cabot are arrows are erudio.

 

 

pers i'd ignore

simply trying to invoke a response

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

  • 3 weeks later...

So. I've now received three text messages from them,

all from different numbers (they've obviously dug my number up from somewhere!)

and two missed calls, no voicemail, from their office (number now blocked) along with a chasing letter.

All in the last 2 weeks.

 

Is there any benefit to trying a cease and desist approach or should I continue to leave well alone?

Temptation to slap them down is strong but they are angling for me to make contact, so may not be wise.

.. Advice welcomed.

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

  • 3 weeks later...

So, an interesting twist.

As about to leave to take my kids to school my mobile rang.

Mobile number I didn't recognize so ignored.

Previously I'd blocked Capquest's landline on my mobile.

 

 

Seconds after it stopped ringing, my landline went (they hadn't called that before afaik).

Picked up and conversation went a bit like this:

 

Me: Hello?

Silence for a few seconds...

Cq: Hello?

Me: Yes, you called me.

Cq: Can I speak to

Me: Speaking

Cq: This is Capquest. For security reasons can I ask you to confirm your postcode?

Me: Oh, you're the ones that have been spamming me with strange texts and letters recently?

Cq: We've been trying to contact you...

Me: Well, please conduct all further communications in writing.

Cq: We've sent letters but you haven't contacted us in return.

Me: That's because your letters have not contained any information indicating why you have the right to be making the requests or any detailed information about the subject in question. So if you write to me with full details of the request and your authority to make it then I will be in a position to decide whether to respond, but everything received to date has simply been requests to contact you with no detailed context supplied so I have treated them as such. All further communications by post please.

Cq:

Me: OK, we're done here, goodbye.

 

Voicemail on my mobile was an automated message from them as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...