Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Lloyds, CCJ, Asset Link and Moorcroft


midastouch154
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2548 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

I have two cases with LTSB which are quite complex so please bear with me.

 

Case 1:

 

LTSB credit card debt pre 2007

- CCJ obtained by defaul at Northampton in 2011.

I intially defended and it went to a full hearing which I couldn't attend due to family issues and my ental state at the time.

 

They sent some big-time lawyer to the case which added £4K to the CCJ bringing it to near £19K with no interest payable.

 

Got a variation order and have been paying £50 a month since 2012 without missing a month.

Debt now approx £16.5K.

I got a leteer last week from Lloyds saying they are passing the debt on to Moorcroft to collect.

 

Why would they do that?

It's not like I'm going to pay Moorcroft over a Court order?

 

I'll obviously ignore Moorcrap,

but am wondering what Lloyds are doing here?

 

this CCJ dosen't show on ANY of my credit files or trustonline but does exist

- I phoned the relevant court to see if there's been any movement on the CCJ and there hasn't.

 

LTSB contacted me back in 2014 to tell me that their solicitor has been changed and that the court has been infomed.

 

Well the court knew nothing about that when I phoned them a couple of weeks back so wonder if I can use that in some way?

 

Case 2

 

Loan with LTSB

- CCJ obtained 2011

- not defended as post 2007

- going through a bad time as above.

 

Had the CCJ varied to pay £25 per month which I've paid without fail since.

 

Got a letter from Asset Link in early July this year saying that they have bought the debt from Lloyds.

 

In the same envelope was a letter from Lloyds saying the same thing.

 

Contacted the court [Northampton] to see if there was any movement and they said no, everything was the same as 2011.

 

Well, on a whim a couple of weeks ago, I phoned them back again and was told that the claimant was now Asset Link and had been since 2011 :evil:

I was on the phone for over an hour with this guy telling me that I had obviously made a mistake and that LTSB were NEVER claimants.

 

Finally he found a note on the file which was a bulk order from a judge changing the claimant from LTSB to Asset Link on a lot of accounts - not just mine.

 

If I hadn't contacted the court, I would have known nothing about this

- surely some CPR has been broken here?

 

I have also contacted Asset Link asking for the original credit agreement from LTSB and the current statement of my account.

 

They replied saying it would take them up to 30 days to get the info

- it's been over 50 days now so it looks like they don't have it.

 

Their solicitors have also contacted me telling me it's important to keep up my regular payments to the new claimant.

 

I'm sorely tempted to just give up on these two debts.

The total is just over £20K and even paying £75 a month as I have been, will take me over 20 years to pay.

 

I'm self employed on low income, don't drive and have little in the way of assets for bailiffs to seize and I rent my home - so in all honesty, what have I got to lose?

 

If you need any letters posted up, just let me know. Thanks for reading and I appreciate any help and advice you give.

Link to post
Share on other sites

case 1. Ignore moorcroft, keep paying to lloyds. Moorcroft have absolutely no power or authority. Looyds just sent your debt to them hoping that theyd scare you into paying more. COMPLETELY ignore them and continue paying as the court directed.

 

Case 2, keep lying low until something of substance comes along and STAY OFF THE PHONE.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

these two moves are std now

lots of Lloyd customers with or without CCJ have had letters saying pay Moorcroft

well don't

you pay their CLIENT that is named on the letter.

 

as for the link one again you are not alone.

really sad that effectively theres not much you can do

I hate link getting money

but it seems everything is in order

 

having or not an enforceable agreement makes no odds sadly as the CCJ trumps it

 

might pay you to get an sar running to Lloyds

might throw something reclaimable up?

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

yep

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

Something important to consider here.

 

No doubt a hell of a lot of Lloyds debts have been sold to Asset Link recently.

A lot of these debts will have CCJ's attached.

Asset Link WILL have those CCJ's amended to show them as the claimants.

I only know this because I contacted the court to find out.

If I hadn't, I would have had no idea and I suspect that is the reality for the majority of customers.

 

Now, if Asset Link decide to enforce these CCJ's

- and some will have C/O's attached,

I foresee that there will be quite a few problems up ahead to those that are unaware of the change of claimant.

 

In my case,

the CCJ is nearly 6 years old and I suspect that if they try to enforce the CCJ, it won't be plain sailing.

 

After all, I've paid the claimants nothing over the past 5+ years [i've paid LTSB plenty mind:wink:]

- and I hear that judges don't take kindly to enforcement after such time or am I wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Regarding Case 2 with Asset Link, I thought I'd just add an update.

 

Even though there is a CCJ attached to this debt,

I contacted Asset Link with a CCA request which they have failed to deliver on

- despite contacting me saying they would do so within 30 days.

 

Their solictors [Kearns] got a similar letter from me saying that I refuse to pay them anything until they can prove that assignment was done legally and within the terms of my agreement with Lloyds.

 

Kearns have now responded and told me that they have contacted their clients to get a copy of the agreement and deed of assignment [their words] and will send me a copy of both once they've received them.

 

Good luck with that I say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Just an update on my case # 2 above. I've been in communication with Asset Link's solicitors [Kearns] basically refusing to pay them a penny until they prove assignment. They threatened to go back to court to enforce the CCJ and I told them to go ahead as I would welcome the chance to go back to court to see the proof asked for.

 

Got a letter today from Kearns telling me they are returning the account back to Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd as servicer on behalf of Asset Link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well same lot 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

PS I admire your stance on this debt

wish more users here would have the guts to front link off .

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

Thank you dx.

 

I hate DCA's and I will fight them with all I've got rather than give them a penny of my money.

 

This CCJ is over 6 years old now, so I think would have to go in front of a judge if they want to enforce which would mean proving assignment.

 

I'm hoping they'll just bugger off now but know that is unlikely and it'll be passed on to someone else to try their dirty tricks.

Edited by midastouch154
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...