Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The reason that I have indicated that it is the seller who should bring an action against Hermes is not because they are the seller – but because they are the person who suffered the loss. If you haven't suffered a loss then you probably don't have the status – locus standi – to bring a court action. Of course there is a slight problem that you didn't enter into the contract with Hermes – the purchaser did. Until 1999 this would have been a problem and would have prevented you from bringing any kind of action at all – at least on the basis of contract. However, since 1999, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act gives the beneficiary of any contract full third party rights as if they were a contracting party. The only exception to this is that if the contract specifically excluded non-contracting parties – and I'm not aware that Hermes has yet amended their contract to try and prevent this. Of course as usual, Hermes will make a big point about the fact that no insurance was purchased. Hopefully you have been reading around the threads on this sub- forum and you have seen that our view is that it is completely unfair and in fact it is absurd to require a customer to pay money to protect Hermes or any other service provider from the consequences of their own negligence or the criminality of their own employees. Every time this point has been raised with Hermes in mediation, Hermes have settled and we consider that it is because they want to avoid going to court to get a definitive judgement that their insurance scam – is precisely that – a scam. On the basis of what I understand here, this is more than just negligence there is criminality and your bike has been stolen. You've already begun a complaint and you have been knocked back and so I think there's no point in mucking around and I think that you should simply issue a letter of claim to Hermes giving them 14 days to settle in full or else you will begin a court action. Make sure that you have read around the forum about taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very easy but you need to be aware of the steps. If you send the letter of claim, then don't expect that they are suddenly going to refund you your money. They won't. They will force you to issue the court papers and who will then force you to pay the hearing fee. At this point, they will opt for mediation and they will try to knock you down and get your compromise in your claim. You should stand your ground and refused to compromise even a single penny. We will help you all the way. You seem to be a seller and a purchaser here who are getting on very well together and so as you are motivated by a common purpose, you may want to get an agreement where you decide to share the fees of court action – which won't be very much. I haven't checked the court fees for this value claim – but I expect that the whole thing will be only about £120. Of course you will get that back when you win – but bear in mind there is a is a slight risk factor and that means that £120 would be the extent of your risk and would be the maximum that you would lose. It is inconceivable that you would lose. You should be claiming the cost of the bike, the cost of delivery, plus interest which is presently 8% – a very good rate in today's economic climate. Of course you will also claim back your court fees. If you want to proceed then please let us know and let us know also that you have read around the stories and also the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court and that you understand what you are doing. If you do your basic reading over the next couple of days then we can help you draft a letter of claim on Sunday and you can send it off on Monday. I would recommend that you post your draft letter of claim on this forum so we can check it. Keep it short and to the point.
    • That's what keeps divorce lawyers and mediators in work, I suppose. You think he's being unreasonable and he thinks you are.   My gut feeling is that it would be better to have this agreed in writing so it can't be challenged later, but that's just my opinion. Here's more information from the CAB in case it covers something you haven't already considered.   HB
    • Biden doesn't seem bothered about negotiating a trade treaty to suit the UK government's timetable. I don't suppose they saw this coming, not that the amount of trade involved makes up for what's being lost with Europe anyway.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-usa-trade-deal-b1807616.html
    • No we haven’t mentioned divorce yet The fair split is I give him half the equity and anything he wants to take from the house  I just feel he is now being unreasonable because I won’t change my mind and take him back 
    • Hi.   Have you spoken to a divorce lawyer or has your husband? Trying to look at this from the outside, it sounds as if it would be better to agree a fair split according to divorce law rather than deciding between you.   Sadly, once money becomes involved things can become more complicated, but I'd have thought a divorce lawyer would be able to advise.   ETA: Here's some advice from the government.   HB
  • 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

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...