old debt haunting me

roisindubh · 7 December 2017 at 7:57PM

Sent a prove it letter to Capquest recorded and signed for. Received a reply today with very little info again

it says

"re shop direct (carval)
account number 10774313
how much you owe 189.52

Thank you for contatcing us

we can confirm that this relates to a mail order account with Great Universal, subsidiary of Shop Direct, which was taken out on 27th July 1996

If you have a dispute on this account then please provide us with full details of this, along with any supporting documentation so we may investigate this matter further

This account has been placed on hold until 03 January 2018 and we would be grateful if you could contact us on or before this date to advise on how you wish to proceed"

Again very little detail apart from an old debt from 21 years ago that I never disputed I owed at the time. An account number I can't verify and a figure that as far as I'm concerned they've plucked out of fresh air. In fact nothing new from the original letter that started all this saga off. THey're effectively asking me to provide documentation to prove I don't owe 189.52. Now I may be a novice at this but surely it's down to them to prove I do owe it otherwhise people could send out letters for debts for whatever value and even if they're paid up, unless you have proof to that effect they can chase you again.

How do I proceed with this. Is it time for the cca s77-79 letter asking them for all the relevant paperwork now bacuase as far as the prove it side goes all they've got is a reference number attached to a debt from 20 years ago and no records of any payment or anything else

sourcrates · 7 December 2017 at 8:31PM

No payments in 20 years it will be statute barred.

They must prove liability 100%.

Send the statute barred letter, that should put it to bed.

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/sampleletters/Pages/Time-has-run-out-to-recover-the-debt-%28sole-name%29.aspx

fatbelly · 7 December 2017 at 8:42PM

Of course if there was a ccj then it's not statute barred but that now seems unclear.

It seems (as I suspected earlier) that they cannot prove anything.

If the latest letter made no reference to a ccj then this hybrid letter might
suit:

I do not acknowledge any debt to you or any other company or organisation that you claim to be representing.

Dear Sir/Madam

Reference number :

You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

I would point out that we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to <creditor>.

I am familiar with the Consumer Credit sourcebook of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which states the following rules.

"A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid." 7.5.3

"A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds." 7.14.1

"Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner." 7.14.3

In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

Furthermore, ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

We would further note that based on the information you have supplied, this account would also be statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 "an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued".

I would also point out that in their Consumer Credit sourcebook, the Financial Conduct Authority states the following rules:

"...a firm must not attempt to recover a statute barred debt in England, Wales or Northern Ireland if the lender or owner has not been in contact with the customer during the limitation period." 7.15.4

"A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred." 7.15.8

We would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above accounts unless you can provide evidence of both:

(1) proof of my liability regarding this debt.

and

(2) payment or written acknowledgement from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

We await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise we will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the FCA of your actions.

You must also treat this as a formal complaint, and as such I require a copy of your complaints procedure and a response to take to the Financial Ombudsman.

I look forward to your reply.

roisindubh · 7 December 2017 at 8:53PM

the basic outline is yes, during my first marriage I ran up some debts, the bulk of which are now all paid. This one, whilst the debt is 20 years old the company I was paying up to 2015 stopped cashing cheques, HL legal apparently stopped trading. I had no further communication from them saying where to send money. When I stopped sending cheques the amount outstanding was substantially less than the 189.52 capquest claim but in the phone call i had when I first had contact from them it was "can you prove you don't owe it" which seemed strange. That's when i posted on here and following advice sent a prove it letter. The ccj is something capquest threw into the call last time round, I knew nothing about that.

So you would recommend this letter rather than the cca s77-79 letter in this situation then as I believe that due to me paying up to 2 years ago mean it is not statute barred, in which case i'm probably better with the cca letter. Sorry if i sound like a numpty but I'm used to paying my debts and that being the end of it, this sounds more and more like a set of chancers trying for cash without any actual paperwork other than a reference number and a supplier from 21 years ago and a balance that is also woefully out of date (they've already advised me in the call that the debt is that old they have no records of payments and don't know if the previous company has. All they know for definite is the value of several cheques paid in the last five years or so but no balances prior to that

sourcrates · 7 December 2017 at 9:06PM

In light of the above send the hybrid letter in Fatbellys post.

roisindubh · 7 December 2017 at 9:35PM

one last thing before I send the hybrid letter just so I can get it right in my own head (sorry but not used to being hounded). I have paid cheques in the last two years as I stated above, they know the value of the cheques from 2015 so If I paid them in the last two or three years does that not make it not statute barred. Also they have my details from 21 years ao when the original catalogue was taken out. My argument with them was that I believed I had already paid the substantial bulk of this off up to 2015 when HL legal stopped trading and I want them to prove I haven't. Will this hybrid point out to them they have to show I'm still liable for the 189.52 they're claiming now and not just the original starting debt. Sorry to sound like a novice. I just want them to provide unequivocal proof of me owing them 189.52 which I don'tbelieve they can. Will this hybrid suffice as I know the cca letter asks them to provide a statement.

would including this "Please send me a copy of the above credit agreement and a full breakdown of the account including any interest or charges added.

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (sections 77-79), I am entitled to receive a copy of any credit agreement and a statement of account when I request it. I enclose a payment of £1 which is the fee payable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

I understand a copy of any credit agreement along with a statement of account should be supplied within 12 working days.

I understand that, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with the request for a copy of the agreement and statement of account" be detrimental to my case or strengthen it do you think

fatbelly · 9 December 2017 at 4:46PM

I think you've either got to say

I don't recognise the debt but from the evidence you've supplied so far it would be statute barred anyway

or

Yes it's my account, please supply a copy of the original agreement

"re shop direct (carval)
account number 10774313
how much you owe 189.52

this relates to a mail order account with Great Universal, subsidiary of Shop Direct, which was taken out on 27th July 1996

Thank you for contatcing us

really doesn't prove anything.

All they have done is quote an original reference. If you recognise that as yours, you could move on to request the cca.

Shop Direct were not bothered about signed agreements ten years ago so I think it's very unlikely (but before my time as an adviser) that they were getting them signed 20 years ago, let alone keeping copies.

As it is such an old debt you have a second section of the consumer credit act (since removed) that you can also rely on to protect you.

roisindubh · 10 December 2017 at 3:52PM

cheers for the advice fatbelly. I've sent the hybrid letter to them, I'll see what they send back this time, it's jst galling that they dig up an old debt from years ago, fail to spell my name correctly and the only evidence they can supply is a 21 year old catalogue number and a figure that may have been plucked from fresh air for all I know. Once i get a reply i'll no doubt be back on here asking for more advice

roisindubh · 20 December 2017 at 8:09PM

got back from shopping in york to their latest reply which reads

"re shop direct (carval)
account number 10774313

Thank you for contacting us

Please be advised this account has a judgement on it obtained 03 April 2001

Therefore under the limitations act 1980 this account is not statute barred

Please note that we have placed your account on hold until 14th January 2018

we can confirm this account is not currently on a repayment plan and we would appreciate contact with you before the end of the hold period"

So, still qouting a ccj I know nothing about, though I'm guessing from the fact (as mentioned earlier in this thread) that as they claim this ccj and the fact they have had cheques in the last 3 years (although I have had no correspondence from them in a lot more years than that) this prevents the alleged debt from being statute barred.

Still no proof of liability of debt still being owed (if indeed it is one of mine from 20 years ago) or how they've arrived at the amount they quote. I've had to work out from the little info they have which one it could possibly be. In fact very little new info from the first two letters other than the date of the ccj they say they have. If it is a debt I owed to shop direct/carval from years ago I can honestly say I've never had a statement as in an actual statement like you're supposed to get from dca's. I've never had a reply from either HL or the previous ones about fees added and I'm pretty damned sure most if not all of this was paid up. Surely they should have to provide evidence of where they get the £189 figure from as well as it being one of mine as, for all I'm aware I only have three small debts left which are paid on a monthly basis without fail.

To my mind reading other posts it still feels like they're fishing. They've got a reference number from 20 years ago and a supplier. They're quoting a date for a ccj which I know nothing about and is dated at the time when I'd already started paying all my creditors (and had been done for a year previously).

They can only quote themselves and Arrow as dca's involved (arrow i'd never even heard of until the capquest letter arrived). I only managed to connect the dots to HL when they quoted the last amount paid on the account (which was a unique amount for a monthly payment which meant it had to be connected to HL)

They could only see payments going back a couple of years (they say). They can't tell me anything about any previous dca's involved as apparently the records are too old. Can't confirm any figure other than the one they're quoting as being passed on from Arrow (who i've never even dealt with).

Like I said, all their record seem to comprise of is
1 a date from when I took out a catalogue (20 years ago)
2. a date of a ccj that I know nothing off from 16 years ago
3. Payments from 2015 backwards maybe for a year or 2 (mentioned in initial phone call with them as well as them saying any previous correspondence may be lost as it is too old but they would check)
4. A figure unverified from a dca I've never heard of

Where do I go from here?

fatbelly · 20 December 2017 at 9:33PM

Well this now hinges on the judgement. (Even so, they would have been expected to enforce the judgement within 6 years)

You can dress it up a bit but I think you should say 'please send me a copy of the judgement allegedly obtained 03 April 2001'

old debt haunting me

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free