Aktiv Kapital: The Continuation UPDATE

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

Ooops - seeing as you have broken your own rule already do you fancy having a stab at answering any of the questions you have been asked ?

So what do you call a company that buys up statute barred debts, becomes aggresive and calls people liars when they say they can prove they already paid the debt (I had, and still have, the settlement letter) AND THEN when their tactics don't work they start on the other family members? They are scum and you support them.

The simple fact is that it is always a good idea to clarify whether a debt is legitimate or not and who exactly owns the debt. This is not avoidance it is just good sense. If a debt is legitimate and the paperwork is in order then it should be paid back.
Regards



X

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

Well I can only think of 2 companies that would be interested in statute barred debt, there may be more - I don't know. I certainly don't support them in any way. Your comments have confused me - was the debt statute barred or had you paid it off in which case there was no debt to become statute barred ? Two completely different scenarios. I fully accept that if the debt is more than six years old the lender/dca has had plently of time to do something with it and it is for that reason that the legislation exists, but that does certainly not mean that the debt is not owed and I see nothing wrong with asking for payment, if the customer chooses to exercise his/her right then no problem for me.

As for clarifying a debt is legitimate or not - we are going to have to disagree on this I think. If you genuinely don't remember the debt or believe it does not belong to you then absolutely, query it, I have no problem with that at all. To query it knowing full well that you do actually owe the money is nothing more than an attempt to try and wriggle out of paying on a technicality and I will go to my grave believing that is wrong.

The debt was sorted out over 6 years prior to the letter I recieved. The company concerned was fully aware the debt could not be enforced but threatened me anyway. So they knew that they were in the wrong from the start. They went as far as to suggest something was fishy because I kept paperwork for over 6 years. The fact was that I did not owe the money but it did not stop them.

I agree with you that people should repay what they owe, but I also think that too many companies try it on and slap on unreasonable charges.
I advocate all means within the law to redress the balance. I do not advocate setting out to defraud companies by taking out credit that it is never intended will be repaid. Occasionally someone posts a message trying to avoid debt and I will be one of their critics. But someone massively in debt who can write something off has my blessing. In the scheme of things they have almost certainly paid a heavy price already.

May I remind everyone this thread was started by someone being pursued for a debt they had already paid and we should post about that issue.
Regards



X

Interestinmg that my posts have been removed. Hit some home truths.

No, they were removed because they were abusive.

The thing is with debt is that everyone is morally obliged to repay every penny that is owed along with the interest acrued. Sometimes though, there are situations where this does not happen sometimes due to actions by the debtor and sometimes by actions of the creditor.

Bankrupcy, insolvency, loss of earning potential or debtor or spouse, errors in the transfer of debt to a third party, etc. are all legitimate grounds for payments of the debt to be suspended or cancelled and quite rightly these should be "written off" after six years.

Debtors moving house, changing name and plain denying all knowledge of the debt is debt avoidance and that person gets no respect from me and I would be the first in line to call them a fraudster.

However, I do think that there is legitimate grounds to ensure that DCAs are acting within the law. There is no policing of this industry and the statutory bodies can only respond to complaints and it is hard to complain when the debtor does not test the DCA. I always ask for a copy of the credit agreement and deed of assignment because I believe that if these people are going to make money from my misfortune they are going to have to do it by the book. This is not an attempt to avoid debt this is my way of making these parasites work for their £X,000!

At the end of the day, if I lend money to a mate and then he loses his job, then I'd tell him not to worry about it. On the other hand, if he moved house twice, refused to answer any of my calls, dyed his hair, changed his name and then tried to tell me that I never lent him any money then I'd be upset wouldn't you?

pmbuzz wrote:

...I really have no idea what this is about, but it has caused me to very worried. I have spoken to a few people about it and they have all advised me to ignore it (easier said than done).

I'm no expert, but I think that's poor advice from the people you've spoken to. If they have your genuine name and have solicitors threatening to take you to Court ignoring it would be the LAST thing I'd do.

If you have no connection at all with this alleged debt, you've got to respond. I may be very wrong but my reaction by letter, if it happened to me, would be to "go nuclear." My letter would:

a) Point out this is the very first you've heard of it.

b) Point out you have no connection at all with the alleged debt.

c) DEMAND a full explanation of the history of this and how they obtained your name within 48 hours of receipt of your letter.

d) State that any a)further action against you will be strenously defended, both at Court and out of Court, and all costs of doing so including your time be recouped, and b) that does not preclude any counter-claim or civil action you may wish to pursue against all parties involved for trauma, damage to your reputation, etc.

e) Tell them that if you have not had a satisfactory response, retraction and full apology from all parties within 48 hours you will also issue a compalint against the solicitors through their Complaints channel (I think this is the right link: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/redressscheme.law )

f) Reserve the right to also issue a complaint against them and their methods through Trading Standards, the OFT, and the DTI

Enough to go on with?

Once again, I stress I don't think you can ignore it - even if you are 100% innocent, you need to establish how they linked your name to this alleged debt.