Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So Johnson is moving on from partygate and feels he should deal with issues the country is facing, rather than resign for the culture in No10 or misleading the commons.   The Good Law Project has issued a legal letter threatening court action unless the Met investigates 'The Three Gatherings' or explains why it doesn't think it should investigate the PM's participation in them.   The law must apply fairly to all - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG The Metropolitan Police investigated the various gatherings – we use a neutral expression – around 10 Downing Street during the pandemic...  
    • Having reviewed my previous response, whilst the overall position remains the same, where I referred to a Default, this should have referred to the full amount falling due for payment/the demand for full payment.  I apologise for any confusion that this may have caused and have amended my explanation below to replace any reference to the Default Notice.   Our client’s records show that the last deferment date was the 24 April 2011. Once deferment ends, the agreement takes effect in accordance with the terms thereof – i.e. the monthly payments fall due.   The relevant limitation period in respect of this type of agreement is 6 years, pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (‘the act’).  In respect of this type of agreement, limitation starts to accrue when the full amount owing falls due for payment, as the creditor does not have a cause of action to bring proceedings for the full amount of the claim until that time.  The full amount owing under the agreement becomes due (and the cause of action accrues) in one of two ways, namely:   1.    If the customer fails to make required payments, the creditor can serve a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  In the event that the customer does not pay the arrears in accordance with the Default Notice, the creditor can terminate the agreement.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date; or 2.    If the agreement is not terminated due to failure to comply with a Default Notice, the full amount falls due for payment when the full term of the agreement expires.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date.   In this case, the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice.  The cause of action and hence, the limitation period therefore, started to accrue from the date when the term of the agreement expired.  This was a 60 month agreement.  When a student loan account reaches its 60th month and there is still an outstanding balance, the account matures. This means it will exit the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and the balance becomes due in full. The maturity date is moved on by 12 months with each deferment period meaning that this account matured on the 31 March 2016, which is when the relevant limitation period therefore, started to accrue.  Limitation would not therefore, have expired until March 2022.  As you are aware however, proceedings were issued against you in June 2019 – i.e. comfortably within the relevant limitation period.   Further to the above, even if limitation did not start to run from the date specified above (which it did) and actually started to run from the date of last deferment in 2011 as you incorrectly allege, you did make some payments in respect of the debt, the most recent of which was on the 28 March 2015 in the amount of £90.73, which was paid to Capita under a direct debit.  Pursuant to section 29(5) of the act, the relevant limitation period accrues afresh upon each part payment.  In view of that payment, even if your view of when limitation initially started to accrue was correct (which it is not), it would have accrued afresh based upon the payment and would not therefore, have expired until March 2021.  Again, as proceedings were issued in June 2019, this was comfortably within limitation.   The Subject Access Request supplied to you by Erudio enclosed a number of letters that were issued to you throughout 2016, in which they clearly informed you that your account was in arrears. These letters made it clear that the client wished to work with you to agree an affordable repayment arrangement and that failure to do so may result in a Default being registered against you. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach an amicable resolution resulting in a Final Demand being produced on the 12 January 2017 and issued to you on the 14 January 2017 and it ultimately, becoming necessary for our client to then issue proceedings against you due to non-payment.   As such, whilst I apologise if you feel that our client deliberately delayed the cause of action in order to prolong the limitation period, I assure you that is not the case. As set out above, as the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice, Erudio were contractually obligated to allow a 60 month period between the last deferment date and the account maturity date.  They then acted in a fair and reasonable manner by allowing an additional 10 months after the account maturity date to give you the opportunity to resolve the matter before the Demand in Full was issued.    I have also had sight of an email that you sent to my colleague, Richard Senior in which you requested us to confirm that we have complied with FCA regulation. Having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that throughout our instruction we have acted in accordance with the relevant FCA regulation.
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this 'clone firm'.View the full article
    • More than 90,000 people will get payouts over the installation of emissions cheating devices.View the full article
    • We believe this firm may be providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why you should be wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

New here - some help appreciated!


jkspepper
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5660 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 everyone, I just chanced upon this site very recently and am excited at what I read on these forums.

 

I was in debt after finishing university but nothing I couldn't handle. I am now 100% debt free but worse off for wear in that I now have a low, low credit score (Equifax: 283).

 

Nothing that time and a bit of financial sense can't cure.

 

One of the major headaches during my period of financial difficulty was for a loan of amount £3,000 (over 3 years) for my car. Like I said, I fell on difficult times during the last year of university and thus couldn't keep up with payments in a regular fashion.

 

I regularly couldn't/ pay for 1, 2 or 3 months at a time but would then pay of the outstanding amount; this cycle continued for just over a year.

 

But although I was relatively upfront with my financial status, RFS Ltd (the company that I used) still would call me and send me letters, in which they charged me £25 each time!

 

I eventually settled the whole outstanding amount of ~£1,100.

 

Now, I have a set of statements and upon reading around this site decided to total up the amount of charges that RFS Ltd charged me.. the total comes up to ~£650.

 

£650 is over half of my outstanding amount.. no wonder I couldn't keep up with payments!

 

What I would like to know is how would my claim differ from in this case than for requesting the charges be refunded from a bank?

 

Does the OFT ruling apply to charges applied from companies such as RFS Ltd and is the procedure and regulations the same?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you can, you say you have your statement you could send a prelim letter giving 14 days asking for it back and the template has a bit at the bottom about information on your credit file you would like removed as you believe these charges have resulted in this information being on there, be prepaired for a fight as it will take a while but stay on course and you will get there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply; now I know that it can be done I will carry on with the claim.

 

Are there any successful RFS Ltd claimants here?

 

I also want to clarify; is it still possible to claim when I settled my account in full a year ago (October 2005)?

 

Is it too late?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...