Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
      • 161 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

Open University and old student debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6384 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

Hi all,

 

I've been having a trawl round trying to find a specific section on student loans, i can't find one so i'll post my query here. If anyone is any the wiser as to where i should properly post this please let me know and i'll gladly repost elsewhere.

 

I studied briefly at Uni from Sep99 to Dec99 - but dropped out taking about £3000 student debt with me. In that time i have been working but never earned over £15000 pa, so have had no further contact with the student loan company.

 

I have recently been made redundant, and now wish to study again at Open University......on the application for financial support there is a question which asks if i am in debt to the student loan company, indeed i am! And because i am, it states that my application for financial support cannot be considered.

 

I find this harsh as i have been led to believe that one has to earn over £15000 pa before repayment commences.

 

All i want is a chance to better educate myself for a better future and an end to menial jobs, but feel my earlier mistakes will hold me back.

 

Any advice on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

 

Peace

 

Adam

 

PS i have heard a whisper about these things being written off after six years, but i don't know how true this is!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have made no payments or had any contacts with the SLC in 6 years. then any monies due would now be statute barred (unless of course there is some special ruling with regards to student Loans - that I am not aware of)

 

So you could argue that you are not in debt to the SLC.

 

Other with experince of this may be able to offer some other advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have made no payments or had any contacts with the SLC in 6 years. then any monies due would now be statute barred (unless of course there is some special ruling with regards to student Loans - that I am not aware of)

 

So you could argue that you are not in debt to the SLC.

 

Other with experince of this may be able to offer some other advice.

 

There is some difference with student loans - I know they are nit included in Bankruptcy and i do remeber helping someone apply for one and I think it said it gets written off if it is not paid within 25 years - but I think this changed a couple of years ago. May be worth having a good read of the SLC website.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8. Loan Write-Off

 

For students taking out their first loan in September 2006 or later, the Government will write off student loan balances (except for arrears) which are left unpaid 25 years after their liability to repay commenced, which is the April after the course finished. This will cover both student loans for fees as well as student loans for maintenance.

Source

There doesn't seem to be much about your circumstances, so it looks as though a telephone call to the SLC would be your best option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, this from the DfES website, seems to imply that you do have to pay the loan off. As far as I understand it, the write off after 25 years is ony applicable to first time loans taken out from September 2006.

 

Your loan will be linked to your Tax Code/NI Number so there is no getting away from it.

 

On the bright side though, it does appear that you can have more than one loan.

 

Length of time/Loan Write-offs

 

The length of time that it takes you to repay your loan will depend on your income and how much you borrowed. You will normally continue to repay the loan until you have paid off the full amount. However, for first time borrowers in September 2006 or later, the Government will write off any of your student loan balances (except arrears) which are left unpaid 25 years after you finished your course.

Source

 

Do you know if your loan was with the SLC or the OUSBA?

 

The OUSBA is different to the SLC and is actually a limited Comapny.

OUSBA is a separate Limited Company that is owned by the Open University

Source

 

So basically, if your loan was with the OUSBA, it is now statute barred and you owe nowt.

 

If it with the SLC - then you still owe dosh and you will end up having to pay it off eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My loan in 99 was definitely with SLC. If i do have to pay it off i don't mind, the only worry i have is that it will disqualify me for financial support now, as i'm on my a**e at the moment!!!

 

I'll have to bite the bullet and make the call.....eek

 

 

Tahnks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.

 

Well from what I quickly read on the SLC & DfES website, a person can have more than one student loan - so go for it.

 

Good luck!

 

Yes you can have more than one - but doesn't it depend on what you are studying. Also OU have an additional hardship fund you can apply for.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...