Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Ade,   Stop speaking to them by phone and keep contact in writing only, which you've said you prefer.   Send TT a SAR by post immediately. The data you get back should enable you to see what they think you owe, and how it's made up.   Also write to BW Legal confirming you dispute the alleged debt owed to TT and have written to TT seeking data, so BWL must stop demands until TT have replied to the SAR you've sent them.
    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
    • When I sadly lost my job a while back, i reportd it immpediately to DWP as you are supposed to, but didnt realise at the time that the day I reported to them was the day before I was paid out for the last month. I was actually paid extra whem I left as it was cheaper than redundancy fort the business and at the time it was a good financial move (so I thought).   I was paid on Fri 26th Jan, they paid me out 2 months in one go. I reported to DWP on the 22nd of Han that I was made unemployed, had the letters and evidence. As they spun the story, because of their assesment dates and that, my first payment was on the 1st May and reassured that it works the other way around. That when work starts again, if I dont actually receive money from the company during the assesment period, there wont be an issue as it balances up.   Can I believe this or was it another spun story? I'm concerned that as I'll be paid monthly, (Starting on the 15th paid on the last day of the month), assment ends on the 22nd. Tha they'll take that money into consideration.   I'm just concerned due to the disparity it would cause between 4 odd months I endured with zero income because of how their system works and whatever they ahe in place to counter at this end of the claim.   Anywa, it's just awonder.   Cheers,   Ade    
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

CLI Chasing Jamaica National Small Business Loan debt


Recommended Posts

Got a letter few weeks back with Formal Debt Recovery Notification on an International debt. It is a significant sum.

 

I then got another letter from them  recently with a final reminder.

 

This last letter is  a "final reminder" and states: "Please do not miss the last opportunity to contact us and make arrangement to repay this debt".

 

The debt is got a few months from being statute-barred via original creditors and I am worried that CLI will purchase this debt and begin court proceedings.

 

Very depressed as I I cannot pay this.

 

What should I do?

Edited by syphont
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

what was the debt please

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

government loan.

 

Please forgive me, but I am a bit paranoid writing the details here since CLI may peruse this forum and I do not want to put too many details out.

Edited by syphont
Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you are honest and straight dealing, there is no reason to hide anything here. Your best bet is full openness and transparency.

In what way do you think you might be prejudiced by disclosing this information?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to hide anything

A gov't will not ever sell a debt to a dca so cli are powerless Muppets as always

 

So what if they read here

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

This government would.

The loans company was government funded at the time.

 

and because I am not 100% sure if it is already statute barred

i dont want to reset it by stating anything here that could be traced back to me.

 

My concern is in reading a previous topic about CLI, it seems as if they were able to purchase a debt from a previous creditor, and has taken the debtor to court.

 

I am worried that if the limitations is about to run out in a few months, CLI will expedite the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop being stupid!!

nothing here or anywhere can ever be used against you.

Stop reading silly bs.

 

 tbh you are paranoid about nothing anyway

a dca has no more legal powers than you or i!!

 

they are NOT bailiffs

 

Spill the beans stop being a dca wet nurse

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

But for a previous poster, CLI was able to secure a Deed of Asignment on their debt. Does this not mean that the original debt was legally transfered over to them?:

 

A deed of assignment of a debt is a legal document that transfers the ownership of the debt to another person. By 'ownership' we mean the right to receive repayment of that debt from the same original debtor or borrower.

 

CLI would not need to be FCA regulated to collect  debts that do not pertaining to a consumer credit agreement such as this type of loan, as this type of loan would not have been formed under the 

Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

They strictly seek out debts that fall outside this category. On their website:

 

"Note that Credit Limits International Ltd is NOT authorised NOR regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and does NOT, therefore, collect accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)"

 

I have verified that the alleged debt they claim I have is not formed under CCA 1974.

Edited by syphont
Link to post
Share on other sites

a deed is not a NOA but anyway..

can you post details of what they are chasing...

a dca are NOT bailiffs 

and have no more powers than you or i!1

 

 

 

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

It was a small business loan. The government in question set up an organization that allowed its citizens the opportunity to take out a small business loans at low interest rates. Needless to say, the loan defaulteed as the business went under.

 

It turns out that they were quite lax in persuing the defaulted loan, and interest is now almost as much as the actual loan itself. As a result, I would now be footing almost £36K in debt :(

 

Last payment was made sometime in early 2000s. It woult have already been statute barred, but I believe I foolishly responded to the original creditor via an email, possibly reseting it. By my calculation, it should be statute barred again sometime around september next year.

 

There is no way I can pay this off as I have no assets to speak of. I am applying for citizenship soon, and cannot afford a CCJ.

Edited by syphont
Link to post
Share on other sites

nope doesn't count... email nor phone are admissible evidence

and anyway

there has never been a court case on any such debts whereby admittance has lost the case

 

so which country please

few have anything different than our 6yrs and most are a lot less.

 

do CLI state our client etc etc

and who is that?

 

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

It is Jamaica. Their limitations is 6 years. "Jamaica National Small Business Loans" is the company refererred to (JNSBL)

 

When I checked StepChange, they state:

 

"This needs to be a signed letter from you to the creditor. In some cases an email can also count as written acknowledgment."

 

So I must assume that emails do count.

 

So, my concerns is that CLI will be sending me a NOA next, and expedite the acquisition of a Deed of Assignment, knowing that the statute of limitations will run out soon, in an effort to buy the loan off cheaply and make a tidy profit from poor me.

Edited by syphont
Link to post
Share on other sites

statute barred then.

 

end of, stepchange just like NDL etc , rarely tell the whole truth.

 

send CLI our statute barred letter. dead gone parrott.

 

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to CLI Chasing Jamaica National Small Business Loan debt

and JNSBL is not gov't owned

its a private consortium.

kite flying by CLI..

opps SB'd ..now wind here

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

OK. i clicked the link for your statute barred template, but i do not see it...

 

Also, what do you mean by this ?

 

"kite flying by CLI..

opps SB'd ..now wind here"

 

Also, in reading CONC 7.15, I would have thought that this rule can only be applied when a law court rules infavor of a debt being statute-barred. If no ruling has been made, and the debtor makes communication, would this not reset the limitation period?

Edited by syphont
Link to post
Share on other sites

correct just adapt it to reflect the laws and country of origin.

 

theres nowtbthey can do anyway 

but if you want to send it anyway upto you.

 

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

Post any more questions here.

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

emails can be edited, changed faked and manipulated.

there are NO examples of emails ever being used in any case anywhere as the sole reason a debt might not be SB'd.

 

just send the letter stop fretting.

 

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
  • 2 weeks later...

I received another letter about a week ago.

 

It states Final Proposal Offer in red. Because I did not respond to the they informed their client hat I have not taken the chance to resolve the matter amicably. They stated that they have checked that this address is correct and informed their client that it is now appropriate to take further action against me at this address.

 

What should I do now if this debt is not statute barred?

 

Will CLI then purchase the debt and sue me?

Edited by syphont
Link to post
Share on other sites

the debt is statute barred

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 say this, but I read in several sources that an email can reset this.

Can you please provide me with concrete evidence to the contrary?

 

I don't mean to be a pain, but my stress levels are through the roof right now.

If it has been reset, it would be due to reset again in under 6 months.

I feel as if they are pushing forward to meet this deadline.

 

How could I delay this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with stress is it means people purposefully go looking for things that backup themselves wanting to be stressed about something.

 

its statute barred and even if it wasnt and you sent that letter what harm does it do??

 

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
On 14/11/2020 at 19:42, syphont said:

Hi,

 

Can you please provide evidence that emails are disregarded in statute-barred cases please?

 

Admission of a debt in writing resetting the statute barring period is dictated by the Limitation Act 1980 30(1)&(2):

 

"30 Formal provisions as to acknowledgments and part payments.

 

(1)To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it.

 

(2)For the purposes of section 29, any acknowledgment or payment—

(a)may be made by the agent of the person by whom it is required to be made under that section; and

(b)shall be made to the person, or to an agent of the person, whose title or claim is being acknowledged or, as the case may be, in respect of whose claim the payment is being made."

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/part/II/crossheading/acknowledgment-and-part-payment

 

The admission in writing has to be accompanied with a signature, arguably an email with a digital signature could be sufficient acknowledgment. That acknowledgment could be by an agent, i.e. a solicitor acting on your behalf. But the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply in your case as the statute barring period is dictated by Jamaican legislation so you would need to find out what that is to confirm whether or not an email is considered to be acknowledgment of the debt.

 

 

Edited by Will Goodfellow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...