Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just to add further after speaking with Boots just now.   Apparently, my type of exemption is the only one that doesn’t apply ‘across the board’ for all prescribed medication.   The problem, it seems, is that it the actual NHS prescription form is not ‘set up’ to deal with this. It expects people to be either ‘totally exempt’ or ‘not exempt’.   Thus, when I legitimately signed the back of the form for my one exempt item (and paid for the other), the NHS treat my prescription as being ‘totally exempt’ and thus subject to their checking. Hence it has been picked up by them.   The pharmacist at Boots did say that the lady who served me shouldn’t have allowed me to both sign and pay for items on the same script. So, they are in error in permitting me to do it!   Surely, I cannot be at fault here, if the form doesn’t cater for my circumstances? At the end of the day, I paid for what I should have paid for (and was correctly exempted for the war pensionable item).   Hence the NHS is not ‘out of pocket’ in any way.  So why should I have to pay a penalty charge?
    • Hey all,   This is their latest reply.. thought it was dead!   Thank you for your correspondence, our reply to which is set out below. We understand that you have claimed that there wasn’t sufficient illumination near the sign, please see attached the evidence our client has provided. It is evident that on the balance of probabilities your headlights would have shone onto the sign at the point of parking. The signs displayed at the site clearly state that you must not park on the roadways at any time, if you chose to park outside of these terms, you accept the charge set out on the sign. The signs form the contract between yourself and our client UK Car Park Management Limited. We attach our client's photographic evidence which shows your vehicle bearing registration number Xxxx xxx parked on a roadway. By parking in such a manner the driver accepted the charge of £100.00 set out on the signs. Payment of the charge has not been forthcoming within the relevant timeframe and as such the contract between yourself and our client has now been breached. Our client has incurred further costs as a direct result of the breach in taking steps to recover the outstanding debt. As you have stated that you were not the driver at the time of the parking infringement occurred, please provide a valid nomination for the driver, this can be done by providing their full name and a serviceable address for them. In view of the above it is our Client's position that the sum of £160.00 remains outstanding within 30 days from the date of this email. In the event that neither a valid nomination nor payment is made within this time-frame our Client may elect to issue legal proceedings without further notice.
    • If I sort by start date the newest is by Night Owl on November 25, 2011. Are the newer Lloyds success stories somewhere else?
    • Many thanks Dx.  Do I need to send the SAR to the Data Protection Officer for HSBC at Coventry or to HSBC's headquarters in Canada Square, london.  I've just looked up the Data Protection Register for HSBC and both addresses are shown
    • Heres one similar....plenty in the Legal Success Forum.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/407429-mmfmoriarty-claimform-old-mr-lender-pdlclaim-dismissed/   Andy  
  • Our picks

    • My personal experiences of Future Comms 
      Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!
      • 0 replies
    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies

Opos/Kapama Chasing Statute Barred Debt

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 496 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 took out a loan with Minicredit for £100 (minus their £20 for a faster deposit, so only £80!) in May 2011.


In July 2011 I offered to pay the original loan + one month's interest (£125) but never received a reply, but they did continue to add charges to the amount outstanding right up to them defaulting the account. The account defaulted with all their made up charges at over £800 by September 2011.


Opos/Kapama have chased this debt since some time in 2012. They stopped harrassing me by email and voicemail messages (I never pick up) last June 2017.


The debt fell off my credit files last September when the debt became Statute Barred.


Last week the phone calls started again. They are phoning almost daily and telling my voicemail I have until 8pm the following day to make contact. They are also emailing about my 'outstanding balance' that needs paying in full!


I know that this debt is Statute Barred, and if they bothered to read their own paperwork they'd know this too.


So, my dilemma is this... do I just ignore them as I have done for 6+ years until they get bored and stop again? Is there anything they can do if they are truly ignorant of the fact this debt is SB?


Or, should I let them know this debt is SB and tell them to get lost and not harrass me any further?


Any advice gratefully received, thanks.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

they can ask for payment

you can equally ask them to go away


in E&W a debt being SB'd simply means the owner cant enforce a judgement nor threaten court

so they don't bother.


if you really want things to stop

and it IS 1000% SB'd

send our CONC SB letter from the debt collection section of our library



please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.



Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I am certain it is SB'd, but I'll see how things go before I sock it to 'em with the SB letter/email. Coincidentally, I haven't heard anything from them since I originally posted...hmmm...!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a creditor does try to collect a debt which is statute barred either themselves or with the use of a debt collector this would be deemed as harassment under Section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.


You can also inform the FCA of this practice quoting.....







We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...