Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good Law Project are trying to force HMG to release details of how Sunak's hedge fund made large profits from Moderna. Government ordered to disclose Sunak’s hedge fund emails - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG Good Law Project has won a battle with the Treasury after it tried to suppress emails between Rishi Sunak and the hedge fund he founded.  
    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
  • 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
      • 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

Barclaycard ex-Egg with Hoist / Robinson Way


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1976 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

Hi guys

 

 

I'd like your thoughts on this.

 

I have a Barclaycard / ex-Egg account

- that defaulted back in 2012.

 

In middle of last year it was sold to Hoist and then Robinson Way came chasing. It's a familiar story.

 

Last payment on this was February 2012 (default was Nov. 2012), so I'm thinking "you sods!".

 

I sent CCA request which has taken them months to comply with (I have all the time in the world!).

I finally received a recon from them this week,

with an I&E sheet attached and 30 days complete it (keeps clock ticking :oops:).

 

Reading between the lines, I don't think they have a clue when this agreement commenced, but nor do I, to be honest.

 

There isn't a date specified anywhere.

On the bottom of the Egg recon it states "04_2006",

but this only appears to be a copy of T&Cs,

so probably isn't a compliant recon anyway.

 

They certainly don't appear to have a copy of the original agreement, so from that perspective, I'm hoping this account is from pre-April 2007. All I know is that it's from around that time and could well be 2006, or could be a year later.

 

With the six year anniversary of the last payment coming up next week,

I'm hoping that I'll also have the SB option in my locker too.

 

I'd prefer to eat up another few months though before I would feel confident having to rely on this should they issue a claim.

 

I don't know if it affects anything, but I did enter into conversation with one of these Dor-2-Dor callers a few months after the last payment - they called to the house and caught me on the hop.

 

How would you recommend I respond to the recon they sent me?

I'm ideally looking to string them along for a little while longer if possible,

although they might even keep sending begging letters for a few months without any form of prompting anyway.

 

Cheers!

 

Sham

Edited by Andyorch
edited
Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean you have a pre action protocol letter of claim pack?

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

Hi Shammy and welcome to CAG

 

The debt is Statute Barred 6 years from the last payment so they're probably having a final shot at getting you to pay or acknowledge the debt before it goes SB'd.

 

As you've just had a reply to a CCA request, I think you should do nothing and let the clock TICK ..........

 

:-)

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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean you have a pre action protocol letter of claim pack?

 

Hi DX

 

No, I don't think I ever received anything related to PAP, but I will try to fish out the letter later. I recall it being a standard letter from RW advising that they were acting on behalf of Hoist and require payment of said account. I hit them with a CCA request straight away.

 

Hi Slick

 

They state that collection activity will be held on the account for 30 days so as to enable me to complete and return the financial statement. That will take me over the six year anniversary since last payment (or card use). It does appear that they're living in hope of getting something rather than nothing.

 

Out of interest, last time I really got my head into this stuff, there was some debate over whether the courts were accepting the DN date as the cause of action or the date of last payment/transaction. Is this one still being debated?

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the default was registered 8 months after the cause of action.

 

Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years.

 

Time starts to run from the date on which the right of action accrued. While it is not always straightforward, a right of action usually accrues when a debt becomes due (March 2012), either because the contract requires payment by that date or because the debtor defaults on regular instalment payment.

 

So the date the creditor actually places the default marker on your CRAs and or the date the default notice is dated is relevant.

 

Regards

 

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

Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years.

 

Time starts to run from the date on which the right of action accrued. While it is not always straightforward, a right of action usually accrues when a debt becomes due (March 2012), either because the contract requires payment by that date or because the debtor defaults on regular instalment payment.

 

So the date the creditor actually places the default marker on your CRAs and or the date the default notice is dated is relevant.

 

Thanks Andy!

 

So, are you saying that the SB clock started ticking in March 2012 (on the payment due by date stated on the statement)? This date being the point at which action can be taken under the terms of the agreement?

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy!

 

So, are you saying that the SB clock started ticking in March 2012 (on the payment due by date stated on the statement)? This date being the point at which action can be taken under the terms of the agreement?

 

Sham

 

:thumb:Correct thats when you breached the agreement..... but the creditor will try to convince you otherwise...more like when the creditor actually decided to issue a default notice 8 months later and register with your CRAs...possibly on an even later date.

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

:thumb:Correct thats when you breached the agreement..... but the creditor will try to convince you otherwise...more like when the creditor actually decided to issue a default notice 8 months later and register with your CRAs...possibly on an even later date.

 

Ok, thanks Andy.

 

That leaves 5 weeks for the clock to tick down on.

 

In view of that, would you suggest I respond in any way to the CCA request documentation received, in a bid to eat up some more time? Their letter is dated end of last month and it appears they're happy to wait 30 days for a I&E sheet to be returned (not that I will be doing that), but that would leave me with two weeks to go until the six years have fully passed.

 

Actually, I guess a better question is.... if they send a PAP letter, does this stop the SB clock, or does SB only cease at the time a claim is actually issued?

 

Thanks again,

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PAP has no bearing on the limitations...it does afford you another 30 days before the possibility of a claim being issued.With regards to responding to their efforts to comply with your section 78 request by all means draft a response but beware that the danger of pointing out flaws within their documentation can possibly arm them and allow time to correct before the issuance of a claim.

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

i'd sit on your hands

they'll probly issue a PAP letter of claim I bet

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 both.

 

I think the combination of 30 days granted for the I&E and another 30 for any PAP letter that's pending should see me over the line insofar as SB is concerned.

 

It doesn't look like they have much to go on regards a compliant agreement either, but we'll see in time I guess.

 

Cheers,

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update: Received a Letter of Claim now from H Cohen. It has revealed one helpful thing - the account is from 2006. They only supplied a recon to my CCA request after about four months.

 

I'm pretty sure the SB date on this came and went earlier this month - six years since the first missed payment.

 

The bit I'm unsure about is how to respond to the Letter of Claim.

Do I use the form they've supplied and tick Box D (I dispute the debt).

Then, within a separate letter, state that the debt is Statute Barred?

 

Finally, they specify a date to respond by. Would you suggest I wait until close to that date before sending the response? I'm keen to keep the SB clock ticking where possible.

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • 1 month later...

I responded to the Letter of Claim - denied the debt due to being statute barred and attached the template letter. I did use their own response template, but just recently realised there is a CAG one that should be used. I didn't sign anything.

 

We're now moving towards 6 years and 3 months since last payment, with no further acknowledgement.

 

I've now received a letter from RW advising that the debt is not SB due to the default date, and now request payment proposals within 14 days or it MAY be referred back to HC who MAY be instructed to take court action. I guess that's a standard response and is probably a positive sign.

 

Is there any need to engage in further communication with them, or just let the clock keep ticking and wait for their next move?

 

Cheers!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let them issue a claim if they believe its not SB.

 

 

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

  • 7 months later...

Time for an update on this.

 

Six years since the date of default came and went almost a week ago.

That's over 6 years and 8 months since the cause of action.

It's pre-2007 with no signed agreement, to boot.

 

I'd be surprised if they issue any claims on this one now with so little ammunition, but I'll continue to not count any chickens for a while yet.

The balance was over £8k, so is a nice one to get chalked off.

 

Thanks for the advice given!

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

so should drop off pretty soon

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...