Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Probably to do with the Creditor accepting the reduced payments claim as part of the IVA. - Thats my guess anyway.  As for the mount outstanding... 60k is incredible and im pretty sure a DRO wouldnt cover that much even after the new legislation.    For you @Alfy - Please stay headstrong and stop worrying. My viewpoint on debt with debt collectors is simple. You are a figure on a spreadsheet loaded into a database for them to run a collection cycle through.  They dont care about emotions or your situation, they just care about paying off their shareholders and trying to turn a profit.  They use varying tactics to increase the pressure on you to the point where you will break. People then fall for this an either cave in to DCAs before doing their own due diligence on the debts that are purchased or turn to IVAs like you have.    They are better ways to handle this and Im glad you feel better after a good nights sleep - I hope you can keep it up. 
    • Good afternoon,    I am writing in reference to the retail dispute number ****, between myself and Newton Autos concerning the sale of a Toyota Avensis which has been found to have serious mechanical faults.    As explained previously the car was found to be faulty just six days after purchase. The car had numerous fault codes that appeared on the dash board and went into limp mode. This required assistance from the AA and this evidence has already been provided. The car continues to exhibit these faults and has been diagnosed as having faults with the fuel injectors which will require major mechanical investigation and repairs.    Newton Autos did not make me aware of any faults upon purchase of the vehicle and sold it as being in good condition.    Newton Autos have also refused to honour their responsibilities under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires them to refund the customer if the goods are found to be faulty and not fit for purpose within 30 days of purchase.    Newton Autos also refused to accept my rejection of the vehicle and refused to refund the car and accept the return of the vehicle.    It is clear to me that the car is not fit for purpose as these mechanical faults occurred so soon after purchase and have been shown to be present by both the AA and an independent mechanic.   Kind regards
    • Commercial Landlords are legally allowed to sue for early cancellation of the lease. You can only surrender your lease if your landlord agrees to your doing so. They are under no obligation even to consider your request and are entitled to refuse. You cannot use this as an excuse not to pay your rent. Your landlord is most likely to agree to your surrendering the lease if they want the property back in order to redevelop it, or if they wants to rent it to what they regards as a better tenant or at a higher rent. There are two types of surrender: Express surrender in writing. This is a written document which sets out the terms of the surrender. Implied surrender by conduct. (applies to your position) You can move out of the property you leased, simply hand your keys back and the lease will come to an end, but only if the landlord agrees to accept your surrender. Many tenants have thought they can simply post the keys through the landlord's letter box and the lease is ended. This is not true and without a document from the landlord, not only do you not know if the landlord has accepted the surrender, you also do not know on what basis they have accepted and could find they sue you for rent arrears, service charge arrears, damage to the property and compensation for your attempt to leave the property without the landlord's agreement. Unless you are absolutely certain that the landlord is agreeable to your departure, you should not attempt to imply a surrender by relying on your and the landlord's conduct.  
    • I had to deal with these last year worst DCA I have ever dealt with. Just wait for the constant threats of CCJ and how you'll lose in court and how they won't do mediation and they want the judge to question you with a load of "BIG" words to boot with the letter. My case was struck out in the end, stupidity on their part as I admitted to owing the debt in the end going through the court process was just a formality as they wouldn't let it drop despite me admitting the debt regardless. They didn't send the last part of the court paper work in so it ended up being struck out     .
    • Well, that's it then. Clear proof of the rubbish cameras. Clear proof of double dipping. G24 won't be getting a penny. Belt & braces, I would write to the address LFI has found, include the evidence of double dipping, and ask Fraser Group to call their dogs off.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Erudio claimform - old SLC loans - stayed - now N244 **WON SJ refused**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 283 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

  • 1 month later...

Hi Guys,

 

Just an update 27th june i received a letter from the courts stating they receieved my defence and would allow 30 days for the other side to respond

 

So far we are now 34 days and nothing.

 

Have heard of cases where erudio has appealed and tried to reopen, or maybe its only 30 days for them to respond to the courts in which case i guessi could still get a letter?

 

anyway shall keep you posted

Link to post
Share on other sites

no its 28 days from the date you filed your defence that the claimant must do 'something'

 

not sure where you are reading but there are no cases that I know of whereby erudio have ever continued just let a case get stayed or reopened any stayed claim.

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

28 days plus 5 for service =33

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 OTHER

 

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

  • 2 months later...

well stayed.cost them more to unstay.

 

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...

COR ?   CPR ....does not show stayed on the MCOL dashboard status.....just defence received.

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 OTHER

 

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

unless you get an N244 notification from the court yep ignore

but they've not done that on any SLC claims to date.

 

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

  • 5 months later...

HI Guys, today i got an email below from Drydens stating my defence of statute barred was null because according to them they sent a default notice Nov 2016

 

Just to recap, i defended due to letters from erudio stating my last deferment was 2009, then later saying it was 2014.

My MCOL still doesnt show stayed etc last entry is my defence 26/06/2019

_____

 

We write with reference to the above matter and further to the Defence filed in response to the County Court Claim issued against you.

 

Upon review of your Defence, we note that you claim:

1.    The Debt is Statue Barred

In response to the above, we can confirm that the debt is not Statue Barred pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. A Default Notice was served upon you on 13 October 2016. The Default Notice being the cause of action.

 

You failed to remedy the breach within the time stipulated on the Default Notice and so the account was terminated. A Termination Letter was sent to you on 11 November 2016.

 

Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 states ‘An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued’. Given the Claim was issued on 3 June 2019 and therefore well within the six years allowed to bring a money claim.

 

Even though you were provided with a further copy of the Default Notice following your CPR 31.14 request on 6 February 2020, we further attach a copy for your reference, together with the Termination Notice.

 

Given that the deals with the issues raised in the Defence in full, we are clearly in a position to progress our Client’s Claim against you and would therefore, invite you to now settle this matter without the need for further legal action.

 

Please make payment of the sum due within the next 14 days or alternatively contact these offices to discuss possible repayment options.

 

In the event that we do not hear from you within 14 days, we will have no alternative but to apply to the Court to lift the stay on the proceedings in order to progress the legal action commenced against you. 

 

It is also likely that any such application will include an Application for Summary Judgment, given the evidence which has now been provided to you in support of our Client's Claim. 

 

If the above action becomes necessary, further costs will be incurred which ultimately, may be payable by you.  If you fail to respond to this letter and therefore necessitate such further action, we will produce this and our previous correspondence to the Court in support of any additional claim for costs.

 

We trust that this course of action will not be necessary and look forward to hearing from you by return.

 

 -----------

I saw DX100Uk post on a similar thread loinked below

"simply erudio raising an N244 (as eluded too in post 28) to lift the stay on the old case because they think issuing a Default Notice default notice in September 2018 sets the SB clock date... it DOESN'T and is of any use when you last deferred your loan by early 2013. 

 

pers i'd be writing to the court and objecting to the N244, but let andyotch comment upon the correct response...

when is the hearing date? "

 

I completely panicked thinking i was wrong to assume the last defer date wasnt the clock for SB but seems they are just trying it and the above should be my course of action should it go that far

 

i just didnt understand Andys comment in post 44

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have blocked and bounced all emails addresses long ago.

 

Mcol wont show stayed as its an automatic process if you go read the court letter you got following your defence filing

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

what court form?

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

The defence etc

im not sure what information they can see from what ive filed on MCOL,

but i have never given any DCA my details apart from address.

No idea how they obtained it.

I cant bounce back my emails but i have blocked anyway

 

Sorry to confuse,

im not sitting on any forms currently,

i filed defence in June last year and received a notice of small claims from the courts.

I guess lets await anything further from the Courts now unless you advise otherwise

Link to post
Share on other sites

you haven't put you email details in any court form.

nor can they see your details on mco.

 

probably from your credit file or your old SLC info.

 

not sure what you are panicking about regarding that other thread.

 

the debt is statute barred

the defaulted date ruling is immaterial and not retrospective anyway.

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 months later...

N244 please and any evidence they have sent with it pdf only

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...

Lets hope the judge decides that it requires a hearing.....you need to start preparing your response statement in objection to their application irrespective.It must be submitted not less than 7 days (Hearing /no Hearing)

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

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

You would assume that this type of application should require a hearing to determine but we live in strange times at the moment...given that you have not received anything further yet from the court clarifying if a hearing is to be held... I would draft something now and file and serve a copy just in case.

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 OTHER

 

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

Yes...hence the term " File and Serve " your statement is made pursuant to CPR 24.5

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part24#24.5

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 OTHER

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...