Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
    • I'm ready to reject Hermes offer and issue the letter before claim. I've registered on the MCOL website and filled in my claim with the below particulars.   Should I tick the box to send the particulars directly to the defendant?   Should I also tick the box for the right to claim interest. If so do what date would I put for when the money became owed,  what is daily rate of interest up to the date of judgment?    Thanks again      
    • Zoom boss calls working from home "new reality" and predicts growth - but not at last year's pace. View the full article
  • 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

Honour Student loan - Thought i didn't Have to repay till aged 55


Recommended Posts

Topic moved to the appropriate forum ....Student loans/SLC 

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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

who's is that letter from 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
  • dx100uk changed the title to Honour Student loan - Thought i didn't Have to repay till aged 55

Thank-you for the move into the correct subforum - (couldn't find student loans). 

 

Hi DX. Thank-you for your reply.

 

This is a letter from Honours Student Loans - (Link Financial Outsourcing) 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so to date you've successfully deferred every year missing one year only in 2017/18? using the same slc form till a lapse again this year?

full history please

and have you gained access to the SLC website yet?

 

how old are you 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

Sounds about right. It's a bit blurry to be honest though. 

Haven't managed to access the website as I need to now phone them to register/access. Will try phoning them in the daytime tomorrow. 

I'm 43. 

Thanks for your help DX (radio amateur?)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

da-di-da hi-hi

get that portal working - will nail both your issues

just remember Link are a DCA...

see my red txt below

don't believe a word they say..

esp the bit about the form!

 

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

Honours Student Loans is one of three companies which purchased mortgage-style or fixed term student loans from the Student Loans Company in 2014. It is a trading name of Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd. In this case they are not acting as debt collectors, they own the debt.

 

"Thought i didn't Have to repay till aged 55"

 

I think you are confusing the terms of the loan agreement where there is a possibility of the loan being written off when you reach the age of 50. Where you are behind with any payments, ie you did not defer properly and there is an outstanding amount owed, it won't be written off:

 

"12.  The lender will cancel the borrower’s liability to repay the loan if the borrower—

(a)dies,

(b)is not behind on any repayments under any agreement for a student loan and—

(i)was under the age of 40 when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 50 or when the last agreement for a student loan has been outstanding for not less than 25 years, whichever is the sooner, or

(ii)was aged 40 or older when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 60, or

(c)if the borrower can show the lender that he gets a disability related benefit and because of his disability is permanently unfit for work."

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/211/schedule/2/made

Edited by Will Goodfellow
Link to post
Share on other sites

ofcourse they are acting as debt collectors...!!

 

SLC debts are no different to any other debt Link or any other Debt Buyer Own which are covered by the same Consumer credit act.

 

they are not the creditor, they are a debt buyer and cannot change or dictate anything regarding payments or the T&C's of the agreements - which is why the SLC still manage these and erudio debts on the buyers behalf.

 

 

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

The debts were all sold off by 2014, the SLC no longer manage them at all. There would have been no point in selling them if they had to still manage them after the date of the sale. The purchaser can enforce the original T&Cs as they now own the debt. What makes you think that SLC still manages loans which were sold off years ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:crazy: so you didn't read the letter in post 1 carefully then.....

 

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 a bit confusing though.  SLC still administer the running of the loans applying the terms/conditions, with honour/link holding the financial interest as debt buyer.

 

I suspect that in the agreement to sell the batch of loans, part of the deal was a service contract for SLC to service the loans for x amount of time. 

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

Link were sold the debts in 2 batches in1998 , not 2014 ....and under a totally sep and differing deal to that made with Arrows in 2014.

both created hidden dodgy shill companies to finance the purchase.

 

Immediately Link (hiding behind what the gov't though were 2 sep companies)Thesis and HSL) got them, they changed the T&C's and made everyone they could get a hold of sign new agreements, issuing defaults and getting 1000's of backdoor CCJ's,

 

eventually the Gov't/FOS caught wind of it all after 10'000 of complaints and a few years and told Mr paul burdell (who reputedly made £10m's out of it all) to cease and desist and undid the changes, placing SLC back in control of the overarching administration of the deferment process. which is why we always recommend to use the SLC deferment form not ones provided by the sharks.

 

they stupidly allowed the same thing to happen again some 5yrs later with arrows and erudio when they sold the remaining old style loans off. 

 

debtors need to be very very careful of these two sharks. . it's all here to read in many many past threads.

 

 

 

 

 

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
17 hours ago, dx100uk said:

eventually the Gov't/FOS caught wind of it all after 10'000 of complaints and a few years and told Mr paul burdell (who reputedly made £10m's out of it all) to cease and desist and undid the changes, placing SLC back in control of the overarching administration of the deferment process. which is why we always recommend to use the SLC deferment form not ones provided by the sharks.

 

SLC has always processed deferments for Honours Student Loans and Thesis, it was never placed "back in control" as you claim, that was part of the sales and purchase agreement when the loans were sold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/12/2020 at 23:28, Will Goodfellow said:

The debts were all sold off by 2014,

 

On 09/12/2020 at 22:08, Will Goodfellow said:

Honours Student Loans ....purchased mortgage-style or fixed term student loans from the Student Loans Company in 2014.

.

no these debts were not

they were sold off in 1998 under a differing agreement

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

Yeah, by 2014 they were all sold. Honours Trustee Limited originally bought them in 1999 not 1998 and were then transferred to Honours Student Loans in 2004. Eventually administration being transferred to Link Financial Outsourcing in 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yours is nothing to do with. Erudio.arrows dca

 

it 's with honours/wilmslows/link dca.

 

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

According to the letter from HSL, you have an outstanding balance of £588.93 which is due as you didn't correctly defer. You can pay the arrears or dispute that you owe them for whatever reason. HSL could make a money claim against you in county court if you don't sort out the arrears.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Will Goodfellow said:

Eventually administration being transferred to Link Financial Outsourcing in 2016.

 

total BS, stop making things up !

go read the bottom of the letter is post 1

(0502 16) Honours Student Loans is a trading name of Link Financial Outsourcing Limited

 

On 09/12/2020 at 20:04, Crumpet3000 said:

This is a letter from Honours Student Loans - (Link Financial Outsourcing) 

...............

 

3 hours ago, Will Goodfellow said:

HSL could make a money claim against you in county court if you don't sort out the arrears.

 

or they actually can prove they exist through failure to defer.........

 

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

Why would I make stuff up, or BS as you suggest? It takes a few seconds searching to confirm what I said is true:

 

"When Honours Trustee Limited purchased the loans in 1999 it entered into a contract with the Student Loans Company to continue to manage the loans. This contract terminated in October 2004 and HTL transferred the administration of the loans to a third party administrator who serviced the loans using the trading style of Honours Student Loans (HSL). In January 2016, the administrator was changed by HTL from Capita Customer Management to Link Financial Outsourcing with the Honours Student Loan style remaining in place."

 

https://www.hsloans.co.uk/about/

 

You're trying to tell me things I already know, see post #8 where I state:

 

"Honours Student Loans...is a trading name of Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd."

 

Obviously if a money claim is made, HSL would have to provide evidence that the loan was in arrears if the claim is defended.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

who did you send deferment forms to - direct to SLC always?

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

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...