Link chasing balance on my Thesis Servicing 98' loan: They Say I owe £2500

[cumblechook]

Hello Again Guys.. I am sorry not been on since Oct. I don't get email alerts when posts are made, but I do post when any new developments arise....

 

Special " Hi!!" to Undercover Elsa!

 

Ok So SLC has responded to my demand for proof of a payment in 2005 on both loans. The last letter I had from them detailed that they will be investigating with "their agents" as to the payments received in 2005 and will return to me in greater detail. That was back in May....With this letter they have ignored my request for payment proof and said that I have been in breach of Consumer credit Act 1974 on7 the 98 loan. The 97 loan is with Link.

 

My Course started in 1997.. I think both loans are statute barred. There is a question mark on the 98 loan, but both credit agreements look similar. How would I be able to tell if my credit agreement for 1998 is different? Is there an identifier?

 

 

On the other side... Link have been trying to get the 97' loan... See my last post... I have ignored them...That is definitely statute barred if these payments cannot be proven. And so far the SLC are not any clearer on how the payments in 2005 were made.

[Bazooka Boo]

Complain, complain and complain some more....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Why not complain.

Brig

[kurvaface]

I originally came to CAG because of the SLC and Credit Solutions and have to say I was utterly gobsmacked by the criminal lengths (In my opinion:razz:) that they both went to to try to decieve me into believeing the accounts concerned were not barred. Had they been honest....

 

You have the advantage here - don't give up and certainly don't let them get you down. May I suggest that you contact trading standards on 08454040506 to inform them of SLCs attempts to collect on a statute barred account and also the DCA's deceptive / fraudulent attempt at making you think you have paid some money when you obviously haven't. CPUT regs 2008 are there to prevent unfair and misleading trading practices and trading standards are there to enforce the regulations. SLC have form and they should be helpful. If you get a log number off TS then you can quote your complaint on any correspondence to SLC or DCA and hopefully it may help prompting them into decency!!

[cumblechook]

OK.... OK ..... So both the loans are covered by the consumer credit Act 1974 so they are the old style loans? This means that if the phantom payments are unproven, they are definately statute barred? Both agreements DO outline that they are regulated by the consumer credit act..... Win?

[kurvaface]

Yes.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Cumblechook..just bobbing my head round door to say "Hi"...doesn't sound as if the letter from SLC requires/merits a response, unless you want to write back and point out that they have still failed to answer your question of (date...copy enclosed) as to the meaning/source of those payments which you are adamant were not made by yourself.

As above, a complaint with a case ref number would be a good idea if Link get sniffy again.

 

As my signature, not got much time but just wanted to check you're OK...

 

Elsa x

[cumblechook]

Jezus Christ!!

 

Link Wrote to my mother asking her for assistance in locating me!

 

This is taking the p*ss

 

Should I respond...?

[kurvaface]

Have you rung trading standards?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

NO do not respond, your mother should either

reseal the envelope and return it to them without

comment (take a copy 1st) or write not known

and return, they should not be seeking information

in this way.

Brig.

[cumblechook]

Not rang TS yet..

 

Will do though.

[dx100uk]

you REALLY need to complain to TS/OFT as a priority

 

disgusting behavior

 

dx

[cumblechook]

SO.... its been 5 years since i last posted anything on this thread!

 

I have had SLC, Link Financial, Erodio Loans and not a new one.... Erodip have sold one of the loans to Capquest!

 

Hmmm! Should I be worried?

 

Hassle?

 

What should I do now?

 

Any replies will be appreciated !

[renegadeimp]

it a bogus debt. They know it and theyre selling it on. Thats why NOBODY has even gone anywhere near court with it.

[dx100uk]

really

would be interested in the letters concerning the sale to capquest..that's a first.

not its anything to worry about mind.

 

 

I think

let me check..

 

 

dx

[dx100uk]

silly me

same lot

 

 

arrows are erudio so are capquest

 

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/17410/online-news/exclusive-arrow-acquires-capquest-for-158m

 

 

dx

[cumblechook]

Hmm ..

. Bit Scary here..

.. So looking back ..

. and although I thought all of this was sorted..

 

 

.. I took out 2 seperate loans for some reason.

one in 1997 and this one in 1998.

My course started in 1997.

 

I SAR'd SLC who sent me the agreements.

.. Both are covered by the consumer credit act...

. Does that mean that they were both oldstyle?

 

 

I know the 1997 one is definately,

but the agreement for the 1998 looks the same.

Where can I tell the difference between the two on the agreements?

 

I have never paid although SLC

[cumblechook]

Yes.... Both letters came at the same time.... One from Erudio saying they are handing over to Capquest. These letters came from te same place!!! Both waiting for me when I visited my mum

[cumblechook]

Dodgy [removed] SLC and Link even went as far as faking payments on the statements 5 years ago.

[martin2006]

"Ghost" payments are sadly all too common but when challenged they usually get removed as "admin errors"

[dx100uk]

both old style.

 

 

pers i'd ignore them

until/if a claimform ever arrives

 

 

never heard of one either

[dx100uk]

oh and its statute barred.

thread is over 6yrs old so must be..ignore