Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • well we cant help you without information. we need to SEE the org TfL Letter and your reply. we also need to see the SJPN court forms upon WHAT you are ACTUALLY charged with and if there is a TIC List requiring your signature next to each journey and how many journey's are on the list? scan these upto ONE mass PDF read upload CAREFULLY. if your 'lie' of lost card is included in the court docs within a written statements , i can't see you escaping a criminal conviction...sorry. dx    
    • thanks for the fuller story now... sadly on most assumptions you are wrong. i cant see you going anywhere with this . the file can appear twice on your file, but doesn't hurt you twice. OC's are not obliged to default a debt before sale (though if they dont - it renders the debt useless to a debt buyer) . thus Lowell just left it and in 2021 their entry fell off due to 6yrs of no reporting. lowell didn't 'write it off' its an automated CRA File process . The old EE entry was held on your file because of the AP markers, they are a real bugbear to any account and if its never defaulted can cause an account to show for 12yrs on cra files regardless to any balance or not. in your case its sadly somewhat immaterial that EE erroneously used AP, it appears it didn't actually harm you. you cleared the EE entry bal by paying £69 in 2022, that wouldn't have changed anything really. the AP markers held it on your file. so either EE now remove it or you await it's natural drop off 6yrs from the last AP mark.  
    • So my CPR request has come back from Overdales, the same multipage 29 page agreement that came back via the CCA, plus notice of assignment. However no Default notice, or Statement. They just confirm that they have raised a request for a copy of each,.
  • 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

Welcome want to offset PPI against loan subject to failed CCJ Attempt


Reed313
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2011 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

Sorry for the long post.

 

I had several loans from welcome in the early 2000s and on the last one i thought had finished and welcome said i had another year to pay and i disagreed.

 

Welcome took me to court in around 2008 and the judge threw it out and agreed with me.

 

I have recently claimed ppi on the loans and it was upheld but i have received a letter stating that i owe over £3000 and the debt was sold to a third party and the money would be offset against the debt.

 

I called welcome and said what had happened at the court and they said they have no record of them taking me to court and the onus is on me to prove they took me to court and i dont have the papers cause it was such a long time ago.

 

I have called the court and they said as a judgement was not made against me then they would have closed the case and also have no record of it.

 

What can i do???

Link to post
Share on other sites

retitled and moved to the welcome forum

 

sadly regardless to them losing the case they can still offset.

losing a CCJ doesn't prove you don't owe them anything on their books

the debt still exists.

 

they would have to buy the debt back from the DCA

and prove this by NOA

but we've seen this before sadly.

 

have you sent them an sar to prove they have no data?

 

if not do so.

 

were all the loans prior to 2005?

and were they a refinance chain?

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

well if they are saying you owe them money they must have proof

so sar time!!

 

get everything they hold eh?

 

ideally you should never do a PPI reclaim without an sar.

as how do you know the claim is even correct?

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 quite typical...

 

were these a chain?

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

then I bet they have not calculated things properly

each time you took a new loan the PPI from the previous one would have had extra interest added to it in the rollover and even MORE ppi added with even more int each time.

 

how did you calculate what you were due back?

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

urm..pers I wouldn't trust them as far as I could kick them.

 

are they lumping ppi refunds prior to agreements in 2005 with stuff after 2005

and if I said FSCS does this ring any bells with what they have written?

 

might be beast to scan up what they have returned with to one multipage PDF

read upload.

 

both prior and post 2005 can be refunded against an outstanding debt yes

but these each come under differing rules

 

they cant just lump all the PPI refund as one lump and say that's coming off a claimed debt.

 

it needs careful investigation

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

read what I said about upload

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

names showing on one sheet ...now hidden

 

write back refusing the offer

enc an sar.

 

this smells

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...