Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • And yes, they state their client is EON and that they can return the debt to EON who can either register a default or take me to court. 
    • Thank you. The npower debt was from 2019/2020 until EON took over the account late 2021.   npower had set a DCA on me even though I owed them nothing. I spoke to a customer service agent, following up by email, who confirmed I was in credit . I made a complaint to head office who sent a barrage of emails, changing the amounts each time. According to them, I owed £279.   The debt grew to what it is now as first npower and then EON subsequently failed to put a payment arrangement and direct debit in place to pay off this supposed sum and my ongoing bills.   I was very ill with Covid, struggling in lockdown with a disabled child and informed them of all this.   EON stopped their legal action when I took them to the ombudsman as this was part of my complaint and requested remedy but I have not received a notice of discontinuance.    I would like to set up my own dd to pay them off but am concerned they could still take legal action. I am on a low income and can’t afford to pay them more than a token amount each month.   
    • Thank you guys! @lookinforinfo thank you for the case, it seem to similar with my case which is gold. @Nicky Boy shouldn't be ICO?   Personal data breaches: a guide ICO.ORG.UK   For CAG I found this  The Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) is an independent body which provides expert advice on the use of confidential patient information. This includes providing advice to us, the Health Research Authority (HRA) for research uses. It also provides advice to the Secretary of State for Health for non-research uses.
    • HB - yes I agree it is about their paperwork and advice.  I need to be clear in my head what my complaint is.  And what a result looks like for me? (They should never have placed me with the shark with whom I've had all sorts of issues - but I don't think that's my complaint focus -v-  broker) 
    • HB - all sorts of issues have been in court; the main one re repo remains in court, no resolution.  They all stem really from bad advice by broker.  Indeed, but if the Ombudsman is prepared to accept the complaint, it would be about the advice given by the broker and their paperwork, wouldn't it? You seem to be asserting that the problems you've had stem from their bad advice. HB
  • 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

Default and Limitation Act - River Island Store Card owned by Hoist


amalething03
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3212 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

Hello all. Been using website for reference on many occasion, so now time to ask a question.

 

I have a debt with Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited for £186, balance opened 07/12/2002. The balance status is "gone away", and defaulting since Aug 2014. [Noddle]

 

For approximately 3-4 years I wasn't paying the balance on account that I was unemployed and the account had insurance, which was being paid for me, for 8 years. (Sorry I don't know much about this, PPI maybe?).

 

I moved address in 2010 and subsequently didn't notify the lender, RiverIsland. Last week I checked my credit file to find I've been defaulting since Aug 2014. I suspect this is when I registered as self employed.

 

I have two questions, firstly does the Limitation Act protect me regarding the debt being older than 6 years since I last acknowledged the debt, even though the balance was being paid on my behalf by insurance? I'd only used the account once in 2002 and not made payment against the debt for 8 yrs or so. Just received statements each month confirming the minimum amount was being paid for me.

 

If the Limitation Act doesn't protect my credit file, is it possible I can agree to pay off the balance in full, and the default notice on my account be removed somehow?

 

It's not the debt which is concerning me, but the detrimental effect on my credit file. I'm not sure if it helps, but they hadn't sent me any letters regarding escalating the debt, (my ex-wife still lives at my original address).

 

Thank you for any advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the ppi was/is paying the debt off

you should not be defaulted.

unless there was a time limit for the ppi cover and that ended. in aug 14?

 

 

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

Thanks dx,

 

It looks like the PPI was paying it up until Aug 2014, however upon declaring myself as self employed, they have been notified and stopped paying it.

 

However I believe prior to Aug 2014, at lease 6 years had past while the PPI had paid the debt, and subsequently I hadn't acknowledged the debt.

 

My thought it, if PPI was paying it, does that class as acknowledgement of the debt, or can I still claim statute barred and have the defaults removed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

as it was from the PPI policy that you took out

and most probably instigated

I don't think you can absolve yourself from not being the payee.

 

 

others may have a different view

 

 

the default however, should not have been placed until a default notice had been issued

give you 14 clear days to rectify the issue.

 

 

what happened to interest whilst the PPI was paying this off.

I content it should probably have been frozen?

 

 

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

Thanks dx, but I'm probably miss-leading you. I didn't take out PPI.

 

Its was a RiverIsland store card supported by Santander.

 

 

One day I lost my job and I noticed someone (clydesdale bank) was paying the minimum balance and the interest for me.

 

 

I had worked from many years subsequent to that, however as the store card was being paid off, and Santander wasn't chasing me,

I just allowed them to pay the minimum amount for 5+ years.

 

I just checked with the ex-wife, there was not notices given.

 

 

She would hand me the post as and when a letter came.

 

 

As I didn't change my address with them, technically they should have served notice to my old address, being the family home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so there was an old SO or DD running?

 

 

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

Yes, there would have been a SO or DD. (we're taking a long time ago). It must have been stopped due to a lack of funds. At which point a third party started paying the debt for me. I don't remember being informed about PPI. In store, I just signed a form and took the goods without handing over cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...