Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Court hearing today. WON on all counts of claim. The win though is not the interesting bit, but the ‘why’ is really useful. We were allocated 90 minutes but it took two hours by telephone . The defense were represented but I failed to note whether by a solicitor, barrister or other advocate.   As soon as the judge finished the introductions and before he had time to pass the time over to me to explain my case, the defense interrupted and asked the claim be struck out. He then spent the next 40 minutes discussing with the judge that I had failed to properly serve my bundle upon which I intended to rely. The judge asked me to explain and I said I had served the bundle to them and the court 3 days before the deadline, by signed for post with a tracking number to the address named in the summons being the Royal Mail Head Office in London. I said it was a bit rich that they were making this request when they had failed to serve me and the court with their bundle within the deadline and that I had only just received it. They quoted a certain principle of law (which I failed to write down) which explained that service of documents must be made to the address which either party may request service to be made. They claimed that six months earlier when they lodged their defense to my summons, the covering letter had been sent from their Sheffield office and it constituted the address for future service of documents. I of course had no idea of such a requirement and said that a simple letter heading on a piece of correspondence was not the same as a formal sentence in a letter requesting such future service. It gave the judge some concern but he decided to park the issue and allow the hearing to continue.   I was able to explain my case for the £50 compensation for the lost parcel using the evidence from the defense bundle referencing the Overseas Post Scheme. It was all straight forward. I explained the facts and let them speak for themselves. I then moved on to the delayed Special Delivery items. This is where the fun began because I had to argue against their terms and conditions. I used the defense bundle referencing the UK Post Scheme. I quoted from various clauses which explained the rules relating to claims. That ALL delay claims must be made within 3 months, then that Special Delivery was actually 14 days so not 3 months after all, then another clause which confirmed the deadline was 3 months for all delay claims. I quoted further that these were “common terms” and that some services (Special Delivery was one) had additional terms which were called “specific terms”. Another clause stated that where a conflict arises between common and specific terms, then specific terms took priority. So I turned to the Special Delivery section to quote the specific terms as these would have priority. There was only one term that referenced claims. It simply said If we do not succeed in attempting to deliver by this time (being the next day) we will refund your postage. I used this single phrase to take priority over the 3 months  or 14 day deadline mentioned in the common terms. I discussed how the various clauses conflicted with themselves as if the clauses themselves did not know what the deadlines were and how ambiguous and confusing it was.   The time was then past to the defense and he started to argue there was no contract nor liability in tort (a substantial portion of their written defense document and bundle discussed this argument). It made me smile because I was ready for that. The judge though was ahead of the game and (especially because 40 minutes had been wasted at the beginning) he did not want to hear of it. After about one minute, he stopped the defense by saying exactly what I was preparing to say. Simply that I was not suing under contract or tort but under the conditions of the various postal schemes for which they were liable. He asked the defense to answer my claims. The defense then prevaricated trying to argue the clause that distinctly mentioned the 14 day time limit within which to make a claim for delay (which of course it did) ( as an aside, most people might accept that deadline and not bother to pursue a claim). He had nothing to add about the lost parcel.   Time had run out, we had no questioning and the judge said he was summing up. He was quite happy I had served my documents sufficiently well and took the view that the defense had fallen foul of the court order so he was cancelling out the question about valid service. He had no difficulty in accepting the claim that the lost parcel was valid and awarded me the £50 compensation. He then spoke at longer length about the delay claims and the conflict in the clauses. (at this point I had no idea which way this bit would go). Then, he spoke of how a business such as Royal Mail should not be accepting clauses in their contracts which were clearly inconsistant. (that’s when I started to relax), (and then the best takeaway of the hearing), He said that common law provides in the event of a standard contract if there is any ambiguity, the interpretation should be judged against the person drafting the contract. He called it Contra Proferendem. (I had no idea of that concept but had effectively explained it anyway). I was awarded the whole claim plus costs. The defense asked for permission to appeal which was refused.    Remember the phrase “Contra Proferendem” . I shall be looking more into it. I am sure it will come in handy against any institution that have drafted contracts that cannot be individually negotiated. And will certainly be useful for a long while yet against Royal Mail et al.
    • Original loan was £5000 unsecured over 5 years, 28 payments remaining, he wanted to extend it back up to 5 year.........the bank offered him £6700 to clear his credit card and the bank loan, £135 per month from the original figure of £121    One debt of two years old and one debt of 15 months        
    • Probably a good thing in disguise. Its never a good idea to bundle up everything to one creditor.   How big was the loan to be and would it have been secured? And how old are all his other debts? Who says they even enforceable?   Dx
    • My son was offered an extension to his current loan, with Barclays, they saw him as a good risk due to surplus money still in his account each month, the extension was to include his Barclay Card, all finances including external credit loans and personal circumstances were taken into consideration, and they still saw him as a good risk.......   he was declined today....He didn't ask to have his loan extended but they said he was pre approved and they could help him and he would be financially better off, which is true he would be.......apparently his outgoings were to much in relation to his income which is totally rubbish..its only 47% out goings    So we would like to make an official hard hitting complaint   Thanks to all who read my jottings  
    • Can you make them road legal by placing a sticker on them with the relevant info?  Just a thought...
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

creditcorp Australian debt recovery in UK


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 906 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

Hello,

 

New to the site and hoping to get some guidance and help on a matter I have.

 

 

I have had an email from creditcorp regarding a debt I have in Australia and if I do not contact them within 48hours they will make arrangements to source a uk company to recover these debts on their behalf.

 

They’ve advised the amount of $6000 and from what credit card company they’re recovering for (st George’s bank).

I was paying my credit card whilst in the county but my partner cancelled my defacto visa and I had a very fast exit out of Australia last year.

 

I believe the debt recovery agents have found that I’m back in the uk after contacting friends in Australia about a ‘business matter’ and innocently my friends have said I’m back in the uk. There has been a total of 3 emails from the same guy working for credit corp, in his second email he confirms he knows I now reside in the uk.

My absolute main concern is that I own a house in the uk and so I am terrified of losing that.

 

I am willing to repay the debt to avoid losing this but I do not know where to begin,

what to do as so many things I read seem to contradict each other,

from ignoring them to paying it back in full.

 

Not to mention the amount the debt recovery have added to the amount I actually owed which I think was $3000ish

 

What rights do they have?

And can they get a uk company to follow this up?

I’m assuming it’s stevendrake they engage (from what I’ve read)

 

any help or advise will be very much appreciated.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

they cant do anything

lots of AUS debt threads here already

 

block and bounce their emails.

 

the bottom dollar is its very easy to go BK in AUS simply by using the internet

its detailed here in another thread too

 

just remember all these DCA's and their fake/tame paperwork only solicitors ARE NOT BAILIFFS

and have

ZERO legal powers.

 

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

i had tried reading up on them, there’s so many.

 

It’s hard to follow as everyone has slightly different situations.

I had read one on here about someone who actually got sent to court as the Aussie company had engaged a uk company.

 

Sorry but what does BK mean?

Not sure on the abbreviations with being new to this!

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

BK = bankruptcy

 

best idea is to stick to CAG

 

use the search CAG box of the top redtoolbar

 

something like Aus debt Drake

 

but just remember you have only received EMAILS

they don't even know if you got them

so think about that...are they trying to fleece me for free here hoping I'll wet myself and think they have some magical legal powers?

 

wait till they WRITE to you.

 

delete the emails block their email address and bounce them back as not received/unknown [your] email address very easy to do.

 

don't get [email protected]!!

 

there are one or two court cases knocking around on the net

if they are real is one thing..

they were patsy's paid more to allow it to happen then what was actually being chased most probably

then people read about them and wet themselves when they get a free email chasing them...

 

I believe also there's one case that's banded around whereby the silly person totally ignored COURT papers from a COURT, not fake ones sent by email from the fleecers

that's another story, ...you don't ignore court paperwork sent from a UK court.

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

ofcourse it will show on google its what search engines are for

nothing we can do about.

 

removing the thread wont remove it from google or any internet cache or history 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

yes PM me some alternates and i'll get it done

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

You posted on a free, public Forum, you might as well have posted on Facebook or similar Social Media platform. There is no where to hide from a determined Searcher on the Internet.

If you do not want to reveal info - don't paste it in the first place

Link to post
Share on other sites
they cant do anything

lots of AUS debt threads here already

 

block and bounce their emails.

 

the bottom dollar is its very easy to go BK in AUS simply by using the internet

its detailed here in another thread too

 

just remember all these DCA's and their fake/tame paperwork only solicitors ARE NOT BAILIFFS

and have

ZERO legal powers.

 

dx

 

 

He he says he can pay it.

 

When end will you be stopped from advising people to avoid paying their debts, or is this now the official line of CAG? It is certainly not what CAG was set up for.

 

So so the official line is “Only pay what you owe if there is legal recourse”?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Urh??

 

Who says he owes it some fleecing dca from aus?

With no legal jurisdiction in this country?

 

Bit like our dca's in the uk then??

 

Our dca's are powerless and are not bailiffs

So one from aus is even less so!!

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

Always up to debt owner/creditor to follow the correct legal process and not just harass people.

 

There is nothing stopping a debt owner/creditor from outside the UK, issuing a UK court claim, providing they follow the correct process.

 

Foreign debts have been enforced in UK courts for a very long time. There is a case precedent going back to about 1971 that is still used by foreign creditors. As long as the debtor is resident in the UK, they can ask a UK court to look at their claim.

 

The issue is DCA's trying to use debtors ignorance about debts, in gaining payment by harassment.

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Urh??

 

Who says he owes it some fleecing dca from aus?

With no legal jurisdiction in this country?

 

Bit like our dca's in the uk then??

 

Our dca's are powerless and are not bailiffs

So one from aus is even less so!!

 

 

He says he owes it. PAY what you owe.

 

So what’s the advise now “..only pay it if they can find you and pin you down”?

 

You will be telling him to blindly try a chargeback next ! ( you know, just in case he maid a payment by visa debit)

 

So so what is the official CAG stance on paying debts then...come on DX, I would love to hear it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emails should always be ignored and bounced back

 

The only letters you do not ignore are:

 

A letter of claim from a solicitor representing their clients, the owner of a debt

Or

A statutory demand the same above

Or

A county court claimform

 

Dx

 

Remember this is a thread is about foreign debt

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

as from day one, its never changed, if a DCA/debt buyer owns the debt you always challenge it, never been any different.

 

if the debt is still owned by a UK bank, and is pre the apr 2007 CCA changes whereby a reconstructed CCA could be deemed enforceable - again you always challenge it.

 

but as already pointed out this is a foreign overseas debt.

which the above has no relation too.

 

throw the 'morality' card out the window as they always do.

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to creditcorp Australian debt recovery in UK
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...