Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Private Parking Code of Parking has been postponed as the poor dears are frightened that thew will all go out of business once it becomes Law. We all wish but nothing could be further from the truth so doubtless most of them will have to change their ways if they don't want to be removed as approved parking companies. Thank you for still retaining and producing the original PCN which, no surprise, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. [It even states the vehicle "breeched" the terms  when it was the driver that allegedly breached the terms}. It fails to specify the Parking Period and whilst it does show the arrival and departure ANPR times on the photographs [that I cannot read] they do not include how long you actually parked nor was it specified on the Notice  [photos don't count]. So that means that you spent even less time parked though it would help had you not blocked out the dates and times, so good if you could please include them on your next  post. Pofa  asks the driver to pay the charge S( [2][b] which your PCN doesn't though they do ask the keeper to pay.and they have missed out theses words in parentheses S9[2][f] ii)  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; All of those errors mean that the cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible . What a rubbish Claim Form -doesn't even give the date of the event which it should.  
    • it doesn't matter what you are being charged or if you missed the discount period. you ain't paying anyway..... if this ever gets before a judge. then the ins and out of POFA2012 or any IPC/BPA guidelines might come into play. until then i go get on with your life. you are spending far too much time on a speculative invoice scan scheme  its almost as if you believe these are fines and enforceable in a criminal court and you could have bailiffs at your door any minute.    
    • Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space) guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) but dont get scammed into a DMP. simply tell whomever you call to simply apply for the BS for you.  
    • totally immaterial. time to now start reading up. Programmable Search Engine (google.com) Clickme^^^ do not miss your defence filing date no matter what dx  
    • Programmable Search Engine CSE.GOOGLE.COM clickme^^
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

charging order - student loan


highjinks
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6114 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 guys

Please help!

I received a letter from a solicitors advising that they represented student loans and that they are to put a charging order in respect to the debt (approx 6000). I also received a doc from the court in response to this as well with a hearing set for mid sept.

 

I went to uni as a mature student -loans took out 93/94 (I'll have to check). Finished degree 1997 and started work with a company and basically travelled around the world with my job living at over 5 address in the Uk since finishing uni.

 

I havent been intouch with them although it is obvious that they have sent letters/taken matter to court. I have not received anything before, not even court docs.

 

As this debt is technically 9/10 years old and I have not had contact with them could it be statute barred?

Would it best to S.A.R them in the first instance?

I will post the docs tonight so you can see them.

 

Any advice very much appreciated.

 

rgds

HJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is more than 6 years since you either made a payment to them OR sent them any correspondence on the matter, then the debt will be statute barred....firstly send out a CCA request and a SAR request by recorded delivery or guaranteed delivery. And yes post the documents on here (delete your personal details) and let the more knowledgable experts on here comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As this debt is technically 9/10 years old and I have not had contact with them could it be statute barred?

Would it best to S.A.R them in the first instance?

I will post the docs tonight so you can see them.

 

Any advice very much appreciated.

 

It sounds very likely that the debt is statute barred so long as there has been no written acknowledgement on your part, the 2 great things baout the limitation act is that once a debt is statute barred it always will be, also the onus is on the creditor to prove to you that the debt isn't statute barred.

 

both a CCA request and a SAR would be well worth using first and foremost

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this also mean that if a person has had a student loan and say, has an income that remains under the threshold for deductions for over 6 years.... that if no written acknowledgement is made by the student and there are also no attempts to collect during this time..... that the account is statute-barred then as well ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this also mean that if a person has had a student loan and say, has an income that remains under the threshold for deductions for over 6 years.... that if no written acknowledgement is made by the student and there are also no attempts to collect during this time..... that the account is statute-barred then as well ?

 

Good question my good man,

 

The Limitation Act would prevent the "remedy but not the right". Since the change in student loans in 1998 any monies owing would be taken straight from source once you're above the threshold. This means that although court action couldn't be brought against the debt, the loan company would still automatically get their money from source anyway, in essence they still have the right to do this. It's a similar story with things like benefit overpayments, although they may be stat barred, if someone goes back on the benefit, the money owing could be taken from it.

 

edit: i'm sure this is why for old-style student loans please have to "defer" the loans by writing in, hence a written acknowledgement which starts time running afresh.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds very likely that the debt is statute barred so long as there has been no written acknowledgement on your part, the 2 great things baout the limitation act is that once a debt is statute barred it always will be, also the onus is on the creditor to prove to you that the debt isn't statute barred.

 

both a CCA request and a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) would be well worth using first and foremost

 

HI Sequenci

Thanks for the advice. The thing is if I CCA and SAR them and I have got the dates wrong would this jepedise the posibility of it being statute barred? (I will scan the chrging order tonignt! -got my scanner fixed:) )

 

HJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so, but remember to put at the top of any letter that you send I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY - maybe somebody more knowledgable here will reinforce / advise...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so, but remember to put at the top of any letter that you send I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY - maybe somebody more knowledgable here will reinforce / advise...

 

absolutely. so long as you do not admit liability for the debt.

 

it is worth knowing that once a debt is statute barred it always will be, if you've gone past the 6 years then a written admission wouldn't start time running afresh anyway. if you're not sure on the time, certainly do not admit liability!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is a charging order as opposed to attachment of earnings, then there must be a CCJ out there somewhere which means that the debt is proven by default which would also mean it is not affected by statute of limitations.

If there is a CCJ and it was applied for after the 6 year limitation then I would argue for a set aside on those grounds and take it from there.

 

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can correct me (I hope so) but if not, you have a fight on your hands although you are in good hands here to help you through it.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is a charging order as opposed to attachment of earnings, then there must be a CCJ out there somewhere which means that the debt is proven by default which would also mean it is not affected by statute of limitations.

If there is a CCJ and it was applied for after the 6 year limitation then I would argue for a set aside on those grounds and take it from there.

 

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can correct me (I hope so) but if not, you have a fight on your hands although you are in good hands here to help you through it.

 

this is what i've been getting at.

 

i would imagine the judgment was only granted recently, a set aside would be allowed by the judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, this is what needs to be done on this one.

 

1) find out when the original court judgment was. if need be you can take a look on RTL Home

 

2) if the judgment was granted six years after any previous acknowledgement or payment then you should get a set aside application in on the n244 form, the fee is £65 - if you need help doing this get back to us.

 

3) if there isn't 6 years then we can look at strategies to deal with charging orders, get back in touch and let us know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys

Thanks for all your help on this!

The student loan was taken out 1993/1994. This was then due to be paid back once in work (this would have started 1997). I honestly cannot remember getting any court docs or letters through about a CCJ or any judgement about this. I understand though what you are saying. If there was a CCJ then there must be the debt. If the court or creditor has sent correspondence and I have not received and have not replied to at all, would it still be statute barred?:confused:

I have requested my credit files and also RTL Home

to see were I am (what credit score is really bad?:-o)

 

Speak to you soon

 

rgds

HJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

I have recieved my credit file and also a document from the registry of judgements,orders and fines. There is no default or CCj relating to the student loan at all. I also categorically dent deny getting any documentation through aprt from the current letter,etc for the interim charging order.

 

Could you advise whether it is/can be statute barred as I have not heard anything from them or I havent correspdeded at all since about 2000.

 

If it isnt statute barred then is there anything I can do? Please have a llok at the 3 documents attached. two are the interim charging order and the other is from the registry of judgements,orders and fines.

 

thanks guys for all the support

HJ

registry doc.jpg

intrim order.zip

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the CCJ was obtained in March 2001, this would mean that the debt wouldn't be statute barred. You should certainly be looking to object about the charging order being made final and cite the fact they are trying to enforce the judgment over six years from when it was made.

 

Can you remember receiving a claim form back in 2001?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the CCJ was obtained in March 2001, this would mean that the debt wouldn't be statute barred. You should certainly be looking to object about the charging order being made final and cite the fact they are trying to enforce the judgment over six years from when it was made.

 

Can you remember receiving a claim form back in 2001?

 

Hi Sequenci

I didnt receive anything. I thought it would be statute barred as I have not been intouch for 6+ years?

 

HJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sequenci

I didnt receive anything. I thought it would be statute barred as I have not been intouch for 6+ years?

 

HJ

 

The Limitation Act doesn't apply as there is a CCJ. The key argument is the length of time from when the CCJ was obtained and when they are looking to enforce. It is over 6 years which is unreasonable and this is the main argument that should be used for the court.

 

Did you ever receive notice of the original judgment back in 2001?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Limitation Act doesn't apply as there is a CCJ. The key argument is the length of time from when the CCJ was obtained and when they are looking to enforce. It is over 6 years which is unreasonable and this is the main argument that should be used for the court.

 

Did you ever receive notice of the original judgment back in 2001?

 

No -never received anything.:(

 

HJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

No -never received anything.:(

 

HJ

 

You *may* be able to set the original judgment aside; this would remove the judgment. It is a discretionary ground and you would have to show the court that you applied as soon as was practicable for you to do so. A set aside would put you then into a position that the debt would be statute barred. Have a look:

 

National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 25 Liability For Debts And The Limitation Act

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...