Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Admission of a debt in writing resetting the statute barring period is dicated by the Limitation Act 1980 30(1)&(2):   "30 Formal provisions as to acknowledgments and part payments.   (1)To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it.   (2)For the purposes of section 29, any acknowledgment or payment— (a)may be made by the agent of the person by whom it is required to be made under that section; and (b)shall be made to the person, or to an agent of the person, whose title or claim is being acknowledged or, as the case may be, in respect of whose claim the payment is being made."   https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/part/II/crossheading/acknowledgment-and-part-payment   The admission in writing has to be accompanied with a signature, arguably an email with a digital signature could be sufficient acknowledgment. That acknowledgment could be by an agent, i.e. a solicitor, acting on your behalf. But the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply in your case as the statute barring period is dictated by Jamaican legislation so you would need to find out what that is to confirm whether or not an email is considered to be acknowledgment of the debt.    
    • Great work from lookinforinfo.   When you have time, also try to find out if they have planning permission for the signs.  The council should have a portal, if not directly call or e-mail the council.   You've written "the pay machines there were notorious for not connecting for card payments - NCP always blamed Vodafone's coverage".  Have you got any proof of this?  It could be useful.   BW Legal won't send anything about planning permission or contracts, but they might , just, send a copy of the PCN so we know what you are being pursued for, but even if they don't the SAR will get to the bottom of it.
    • dx, do you mean you would or you wouldn't use arthritis as an excuse please?   HB
    • You weren't stupid at all - in fact you've done everything right!  I wish everyone who comes on the forum would act like you.   You were spot on to ignore letters from Smart and from powerless DCAs, just as you were right to jump into action when the Letter Before Claim showed up as Smart are fishing to decide who to take to court and who not.  As others have said, you now need to show them they would be in serious trouble if they took you to court, via a snotty letter ridiculing their claim and showing you're not ignorant of the law.  Do some searching then please post up a draft of what you propose to send.   Cases like yours are the easiest to defend from a legal point of view.  Smart got their money, you can prove it, they suffered no loss, the registration number nonsense is "de minimis" (the court does not deal with trivialities), judges have ruled on this many times.
    • How much was the bracket?  Is it something you can get from Amazon and then process a refund from Currys?
  • Our picks

Property possessed by Nat West, sold at a loss, balance required.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1598 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

I've not considered mounting a claim yet but that sounds like a good idea, I suppose it depends on what I can include.

"Modern 'currency' is known as 'fiat money': it is artificially created, has no value in itself and the basis for use in exchange is typically a government edict." Paul Morran, Information Rights Unit of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and any insurances/ppi etc the original mortgage agreement included?

 

 

shame you followed the freeman rubbish...

bet you're glad to be here now....

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

I've merged your old thread for history too.

 

 

 

 

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, yes, possibly a shame, though I don't think it's all rubbish just have to be a bit more selective and I should have planned things a lot better.

"Modern 'currency' is known as 'fiat money': it is artificially created, has no value in itself and the basis for use in exchange is typically a government edict." Paul Morran, Information Rights Unit of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the SAR applies as it is/was a secured business loan and not therefore under the Consumer Credit Act, I did try that tack at one point. Thanks though havinacastella. :)

"Modern 'currency' is known as 'fiat money': it is artificially created, has no value in itself and the basis for use in exchange is typically a government edict." Paul Morran, Information Rights Unit of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't think theres ever been a FmOTL win?

but that's immaterial now

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
I don't think the SAR applies as it is/was a secured business loan and not therefore under the Consumer Credit Act, I did try that tack at one point. Thanks though havinacastella. :)

 

SAR has nothing to do with CCA1974

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 thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Andy, I must be getting mixed up with some other request, possibly one for getting evidence from them for court or something. I know something like that I tried to get all the info they held on me which they didn't respond to within the time limit specified. I will have to check again but maybe the SAR is a good way to go, thanks again.

"Modern 'currency' is known as 'fiat money': it is artificially created, has no value in itself and the basis for use in exchange is typically a government edict." Paul Morran, Information Rights Unit of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you probably mean a CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) request (section 77)

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 thread 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...