Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Revenue Collection Services


doo
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5368 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

I have received a letter from RCS this morning demanding £1800 to be paid within 48 hours. It is also a debt I have supposed to have defaulted on from London Scottish Finance Ltd who are now part of Southbank Capital Ltd. I have NEVER had any dealings with any of these companies. I did phone them to ask the loan was taken out by myself, but they would not give out that information unless I sent them a copy of my signature from my Passport, Driving License or Credit Card!! They also said I had been sent numerous letters for a number of months which I haven't received. Checked my credit reports and there is nothing on them about any of this. How can you sort out this mess?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have just received a letter from these people today as well saying what the other person had said Revenue Collection Services Debt Collectors in Sunbury on Thames, in lovely pink paper, the first letter states We have been appointed DCA on behalf of Southbank Capital Lttd reference an outstanding HBOS account and it then staates what is deffo a Credit Card Number that has still not been satisfied. blah blah blah about a Solicitor being involved etc This is a serious matter and dont ignore.

 

On the second page which is just white it says

 

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT A PAYMENT DEMAND

 

On 13 November 2008 your credit loan account with London Scottish Finance Ltd was assigned to Southbank Capital Limited who are now the legal owners of the debt. This letter is to notify you that all future payments under your credit loan account are to be made to Revenue Collection Services and their contact details.

 

Should i just ignore it has anyone else ignored them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Hi NONIRONGIRL08,

 

I notice the last post on this thread was in January, so you may not check back anymore, but if you do you should check out my thread about Southbank Capital Limited.

 

They do not have a consumer Credit licence with the Office of Fair trading, so should not be engaged in debt collection activity.

 

They are also not registered as Data controllers with the ICO so are not leagaly entitled to process personal details, for any purpose!

 

I have fowarded this info to the relevant agencies and strongly urge any one else who can evidence them as trying to collect debts and processing data etc to also let them know.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/219009-southbank-capital-limited-unlicenced.html

With thanks,

ScruffyProfessor

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have just got a letter from this company asking for £31.00 but I am unemployed and I am unable to make that payment so I offered them £1 per month as directed by CCCS and I was told by RCS that it was a priority debt and I must pay it now - any advice

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter had a repayment plan with this company, of £20 per month. However they carried on taking the money after the agreed finishing date.

She complained to them and demanded her money back, but they refused saying there wer extra charges, they could not tell her what they were though.

She made a formal complaint, with an invoice for 2 letters @£22 each, which they refused to pay.

She then complained to FOS and got her complaint upheld,they were ordered to pay her the original £20 back, plus her £44 for letters, as well as £500 compensation.:D

Best of all though, she photocopied the cheque and when it cleared she sent an email to the obnoxious guy she had dealt with Stuart something or other, and attached the copy cheque with THANKS written all over it.:D

Just goes to show, don't give up on this company.Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the same person I am dealing with and I totally agree he is obnoxious......

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just got a letter from this company asking for £31.00 but I am unemployed and I am unable to make that payment so I offered them £1 per month as directed by CCCS and I was told by RCS that it was a priority debt and I must pay it now - any advice

 

Yes..tell them to go forth & multiply...a court would not order you to pay more than a £1 per month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had another phone call from this company and when I answered they hung up.... I phoned them back and they said it was a mistake and that my offer of £1 per month will not be accepted and that they are taking me to court so they are going to add charges accordingly. So I am now going to get my defense together. If I send them a cheque for £1 do they have to accept it?

What can I use in my defense and do they have any legal rights to process my details under DPA as I can't find them on the ICO website.

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my previous post re Southbank Capital.

 

Surrey Trading Standards have added a post to my thread. They are currently investigating their activity and would like anyone who has been pursued either by them or on their behalf to get in touch.

 

The person investigating has left direct contact details.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/219009-southbank-capital-limited-unlicenced.html#post2482466

 

SP

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...