Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • As you have made this so black and white, I have just realised I have probably made a total mess up here 😕   Yes, the original RBS mortgage from 1999 changed in 2009 to a buy-to-let with a different mortgage company, for the same property.   As I thought I had to have a life assurance, this would be ok, even though it was a much smaller amount.   It states the policy holder as myself and the property address and says 'in return for the payment of agreed premiums the company will pay the benefits in accordance to the policy conditions' it doenst really specify who would be paid. I have actual document here.   Something to mention, when I bought this property it was uninhabitable and I have never actually lived there. It was empty for ten years until 2009 when I got some additional borrowing, renovated it and let it out.   In 2011 therefore when it changed to Aviva, that mortgage had been paid off 2 years before.   I have a feeling you are going to say it was my responsibility to have cancelled the policy in 2009 with RSA or with Aviva?     As I had been advised by RBS, I thought I had to life insurance/assurance of some kind as I had a mortgage.      
    • I'm on a Covid run all this week, for some reason I thought it would be quite easy, starts in St Andrews then Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld then Glasgow over 200 miles. I drop of empty Test boxes and collect the ones that are ready to go to the Labs for results.   Every Testing Station today said they had not been very busy over the weekend, it was quite nice weather over the weekend which is more than likely the reason for the lack of numbers.
    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

paid Counselling Intermediary Services 50% of joint shortfall now drydens want the rest.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 986 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

In 2005 I paid (what I thought was) the final payment towards a mortgage shortfall arising from repossession and sale of a property.

 

The mortgage was in joint names with my now ex wife.

 

I argued with the DCA at the time that my wife was jointly liable despite her claim she could not afford to pay,

and eventually agreed to pay 50% of the Lenders' shortfall amount.

 

The DCA claimed to be acting on behalf of the Lender.

 

They wrote and stated that the Lender was prepared to accept my 50% offer in full and final settlement of my liability to them.

 

I paid the agreed amount in full and received a further written confirmation from the DCA

that this was accepted by the Lender as full and final settlement of my liability.

 

They stated that the Lender reserved their right to pursue "any party not named above" for the remaining balance.

 

They stated that the Lender would make arrangements to show that my liability has been satisfied

on the register maintained by the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

 

However,

I have now had a letter forwarded from a previous address claiming that it is from the Lender

with a letter 'enclosed' from a 'solicitor' with whom the debt has now been assigned to from another DCA I have never heard of!

 

The letter claiming to be from the Lender appears to have an old logo which I am unsure as to whether they would actually use

and it is enclosed with the letter from the solicitor which strangely bears the exact date the solicitors letter bears.

 

They are claiming that I owe them the other 50%.

 

They state the following:

"We understand that payments have been made towards this account in the past

and from this we have determined that this account is not in dispute,

there is no valid legal reason for it to remain unpaid

and these payments are an admission of liability.

 

 

If you believ this not to be the case you must contact us immediately to advise us of the details."!

 

Where do I stand on this. Could this be the 'solicitor' faking the Lenders letter?

 

Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi havinastella (wish I was!),

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yes I did indeed (thankfully) keep the letters.

 

Should I wait until they find me at my present address or not?

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I have also just noted that the letter claiming to be from the lender with a solicitor's letter enclosed just happens to have the exact same envelope, postmark, return address as the initial 'fishing' letter which preceeded it and was directly from said 'solicitor'!!

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what I am worried about is that the original DCA was not acting on behalf of the Lender

and that I somehow still owe the Lender?

 

Surely the Lender would be aware that they had accepted my settlement

and as such would not be instructing this DCA/solicitor to resume collection activities?

 

How has this come about.

 

 

The alleged 'Lenders' letter states that the decision to instruct them (solicitor/DCA) specifically relates to a process change within the bank.

 

What does this mean?

 

Thanks.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could either scan or type up the letters [minus identifying information] it would help ppl

or at the very least name names.

 

 

Ppl on the forum will most likely have experience of them, their behaviour and their anatomy and can then advise accordingly .

 

My suspicion is that there has been a communications breakdown somewhere.

I would think it highly unlikely that any lender of repute would have the audacity to demand the other 50%

after having accepted and received payment of a f + f , otherwise they are in breach of numerous guidelines.

 

The mention of third parties in the letter means that they can chase your ex. Unless you are particularly vengeful you should not have agreed but unfortunately you did. Maybe what you have received now was meant for her and not you but they got themselves in a tangle.

 

Little wonder they accepted your offer since it gave them free rein to pursue the remaining 50%.

 

And do you really mean DCA acting on behalf of the creditor or do you mean debt purchaser to whom the debt has been assigned ?

 

 

This is another reason why we really do need names.

 

It is common practice for both DCAs and debt purchasers to send out letters purporting to come from solicitors

but in fact to have been written in-house.

And yes sometimes with obsolete letter head:

I've seen that on several occasions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Back then when I agreed to pay "my half" my now ex wife was not being very helpful or co-operative.

She cashed in both of the endowment policies (worth in excess of £4000

despite a Consent Order made between us at the time that she was to asign the smallest of the 2 policies to me.

She had also ran up several other debts which I had to pay.

 

 

She then proceeded to CSA etc and has screwed me into the ground at every opportunity since.

 

 

I even found out I overpaid the CSA by around £2000 which the CSA refuse to repay me.

 

 

TBH I couldnt have cared less that they would still pursue her as she was the reason the house got repossessed in the first place,

as once she had cashed the endowments, the lender would not let me take over the house/mortgage.

 

the original company dealing with it claimed to be acting on behalf of the lender.

 

They were called "Counselling Intermediary Services" and based in Bournemouth, Dorset.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try and upload the letters at some point minus the personal details and account numbers etc.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

I have just used a search engine to research the company chasing the debt.

I found a thread on another forum which describes exactly what they have done to me here!

 

They have sent a letter which claims to be from the bank which clearly is not

and has a very poor letterhead/logo stating that they have assigned this debt to the so called solicitors.

Both envelopes in this case also have the exact same return address (which is the same as mine).

 

There are comments on the thread that this is in fact deception and is illegal as they are claiming to be who they are not.

The 'solicitors' in question are called Drydensfairfax.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drydens are well known here. That's why I asked you to name names. We still need the full picture, starting from original creditor.

 

When creditors assign [sell] a debt, it is very common practice for the assignee to send not only a letter from themselves but also one purporting to be from the original creditor. They do so with permission of the assignor. Deceptive yes, but happens thousands of times every day.

Don't waste your energies on that, you'll most likely get nowhere: rather, concentrate on your task in hand.

 

Copy or type-up of the letters would help fill in some of the holes in your narrative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the last payment on the shortfall made?

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

Thanks to all for taking the time to reply. I will post up the letters at my earliest convenience. The original creditor was The Halifax. The last payment made was March 2005.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...

Hello all. Having just read this thread to refresh my memory, I realise that I never followed up on the above with regard to posting the letters.

I have, unbelievably, received a letter from another DCA which I suspect is a fishing letter for the above.

Surely, having paid nothing since the "full and final settlement" letter in March 2005, they cannot legally claim that I am liable?

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to say given that you have not updated your thread for 4 years.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the lender saw any of that 50% you paid anyway..

Straight in drydens pocket

 

Which is why they are seeing if they can mug you for the rest

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 dx100uk long time no "speak" . I hope you are well.

 

As per first post above, the original company dealing with it claimed to be acting on behalf of the lender.

 

Drydens got bored when I ignored their threatograms.

 

The original DCA were called "Counselling Intermediary Services" and based in Bournemouth, Dorset.

 

I still have the letter advising that my liability was settled.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Counselling Intermediary Services

are a bunch of [email protected]

 

if you were to enquire to Halifax you'll find they never saw a penny of the money you paid Counselling Intermediary Services

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

Thanks for your reply dx.

 

where does that leave me if I have letters showing monies paid and advising that my liability has been met etc?

 

in fact where does that leave anyone who has paid a debt collector claiming to be collecting on behalf of the OC?

 

If CIS were purporting to be acting on behalf of Halifax as an agent and they haven't paid them do I have any redress?

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ignore all contacts, as you have confirmation you settled your liability years ago. It would be up to the OC to take any further court action, if they were able to, whiich seems to be very doubtful.

 

Think what happens is the OC does not think they will obtain any further settlement. They therefore allow the debt to be chased by a DCA for a fee. If the DCA collects, they keep the amount agreed and the rest goes to some old sundry collection account at the OC. I doubt the original mortgage account is ever noted about any debt collection years later. The mortgage is closed off with the debt owed and debt collection activity is a separate issue.

 

You have no redress. The debt was owed. You decided to pay something to a DCA that bought rights to collect and what happens to the money is subject to commercial agreement between the DCA and OC.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

go ask haliprats if they got your F&F

I bet not!

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
Just ignore all contacts, as you have confirmation you settled your liability years ago. It would be up to the OC to take any further court action, if they were able to, whiich seems to be very doubtful.

 

Think what happens is the OC does not think they will obtain any further settlement. They therefore allow the debt to be chased by a DCA for a fee. If the DCA collects, they keep the amount agreed and the rest goes to some old sundry collection account at the OC. I doubt the original mortgage account is ever noted about any debt collection years later. The mortgage is closed off with the debt owed and debt collection activity is a separate issue.

 

You have no redress. The debt was owed. You decided to pay something to a DCA that bought rights to collect and what happens to the money is subject to commercial agreement between the DCA and OC.

 

Thanks UB If the DCA (in this case CIS) was acting on behalf of the Halifax rather than buying the debt would that make any difference?

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites
go ask haliprats if they got your F&F

I bet not!

 

I'd rather not contact them or the DCA if I can avoid it as I'd be confirming my whereabouts.

Redletter

 

 

'I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair - I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

you should never run away from debt!

backdoor CCJ's

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...