Letter out of the blue

thefirstlady

This is my first post - please be gentle:o

Today I got a letter out of the blue with a phone number saying call it as it's important so I did. It was a debt collector stating that I owed money from an unpaid bank loan taken out early 2000.

I have had no contact regarding this since 2000. To be honest I was a horrid 20 year old at he time with loads off issues so had completely forgotten about it especially as it is now 8.5 years on and I am married with 2 kids.

I didn't accept liability for the debt on the phone but did um and hmm every so often. I refused to answer standard debt tracing questions until I said I would look into it further.

I have been banking with the same company for way over 15 years as the debt was with but still no contact. They said on the phone that it had gone to a solicitor and I had to make payment in full now. There was also talk of them getting someone round to repossess my items in the house.

I am a little confused to be honest and it is onlyfor £2000 but with cars breaking recently and having to get a new one I have no savings and don't really want to get a loan to cover it or get it added to the mortgage.

Sorry it's a bit of a ramble
thanks for any advise
xx

fermi

If the debt is from 2000 and you have not paid it or acknowledged it in writing yourself in the last 6 years (5 in Scotland), then the debt is "statute barred" under the Limitation Acts and is legally unenforceable.

The debt collector will know this, and is hoping that you don't. :rolleyes:

From a previous thread:

A debt will be "Statute Barred" if there has been no acknowledgement of the debt by you making a payment or in writing within the relevant limitation period.

If you are in England/Wales then the limitation period is 6 years and you should read:

Link: Factsheet | Liability for Debts and the Limitation Act (England/Wales)

If you are in Scotland then the limitation period is 5 years and you should read:

Link: Factsheet | Liability for debts & the Prescription & Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

If you feel the debt is "Statute Barred", then there is a letter to write at the end of each factsheet.

If you are unsure of anything, then give National Debtline a call free on 0808 808 4000 to talk your situation through with a professional advisor.

RAS

Fermi is right.

The reason they want it paid in full and they are making threats is because if you cough up and then find out about the Statute of Limitiations, you cannot reclaim the money.

Legally the debt still exists so they are entitled to ask you to pay (nicely). If you decline, then the courts would not support any action against you. Once you have told them this, then any further attempt to extract money from you is against OFT Guidelines.

if they are threatending to send someone round to repossess items from the house, then they are making false threats. You may find that what they say is "our solicitor will consider whether to send someone round ... " They know very well that if this solicitor even exists, the legal advice would be that they could not enforce the debt.

thefirstlady

Thank you so so so much. I will e printing that letter off tonight and mailing it tomorrow morning recorded delivery.

I think the last contact I had with them was over 7 years ago so it definitely falls into the 5 years for Scotland.

I knew I could count on you and am shocked it took em until today to register - I thought I was already on here!

x

thefirstlady

Update to this sorry tale and advice would be great.

I have had another letter form these people, no response to my recorded delivery letter previously but now a letter stating a reduced settlement offer saying "Despite repeated requests for payment by our client" Erm .. no you've not you asked once and didn't reply to my reply!

It goes on to then say Our client would prefer an amicable settlement however, should the settlement amount not be paid by the specified day (27th Oct!) they will not hesitate to take such furthre action as may be appropriate.

Should I mail the same letter - again - with this part in bold?

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that:
"continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment".

I would also send a covering letter stating that there was no reply to my previous letter which I know arrived as it was recorded delivery.

I'm in a bit of a pickle, don't want to put my foot in it but don't want to sound like a loon.

Thanks in advance for any help. x

mandi

Just ignore todays letter , they trying it on .. and thats a a bog standard scare tactic , saying theyve contacted you when the havent..

Resend the origional letter and highlight, as you have said. with the covering letter. Advise them that there will be no futher correspondece from you, anf if they persist " harrasing "you, then you will have no option but to take legal action against them..

Who is the agency Lowell, or Hamptons.. I get letters from them every week alleging unpaid debits.. Havent replied to a single one in over a year now, they are worse than something you,d walk in on your shoe & not worth worrying about !!!

If they were to take legal action , you would have to be informed, but then again thats another of their scare tactics too... I dont know how they get away with it...:mad:

stapeley

In your first letter you said you have been with same bank ? The same bank debt was with ? I would be tempted to change bank to a unassociated one . I know its been 8 years but I would be worried that they could just take money from your account .

fermi

Idiots. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

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

Acc/Ref No: *******************

FORMAL COMPLAINT under the complaint procedures set out by the Financial Ombudsman.

Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/2008, the contents of which are noted.

On xx/xx/2008 I wrote to <name of DCA> regarding a debt that was alleged to be owed by myself. That letter was received and signed for on xx/xx/2008 as confirmed by Royal Mail tracking.

In this letter I pointed out the following items:

1) 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".

2) The OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that "it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period".

3) The last correspondence/payment/acknowledgement or payment of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

4) The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".

Therefore it is clear that your original contact regarding this debt was in breach of the Office of Fair Trading Guideline referred to in item (2).

Furthermore, your second letter is in direct breach of Office of Fair Trading Guideline referred to in item (4) and constitutes harassment.

As you are no doubt aware, breaches of the OFT's Guidance on Debt Collection are treated seriously by the OFT when considering your fitness to hold a Consumer Credit License.

In particular the OFT has recently stated that:

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) requires debt collectors, businesses that offer goods or services on credit and/or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire to be licensed by the OFT. Following implementation of the OFT's new powers under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 on 6 April 2008, the companies could also have specific 'requirements' imposed on them by the OFT. If such a requirement was not complied with, the business concerned could be subject to a financial penalty of up to £50,000. The OFT can also refuse or revoke a licence if it decides that a trader is not fit to hold one. The OFT can take into account any circumstances which appear to be relevant when considering the fitness of an applicant or licensee, including evidence that the company has contravened the Data Protection Act 1988.

Therefore I wish to formally notify you that unless I received confirmation that this matter is now closed, then I will not hesitate to make a formal complaint to the 'Office of Fair Trading' and also to 'Trading Standards'.

Furthermore, any attempted contact (other than to confirm that this matter is now closed) by any:

• "trading style" of <name of DCA>
• constituent member of <name of DCA> Group.
• a third party acting on your behalf
• a third party that claims to have been legally assigned this debt

will result in an immediate complaint to the aforementioned regulatory bodies.

Also please note that any legal action you may consider will be FULLY and VIGOROUSLY defended, and you will be put to a strict proof of the alleged debt and any payment or acknowledgement that you claim within the relevant limitation period.

Furthermore, you may consider this letter a FORMAL COMPLAINT under the complaint procedures set out by the Financial Ombudsman. If you wish to correspond with myself with any other purpose than to confirm that this matter is now closed, then I require you to supply me with a written copy of your complaints procedure and a "final response" that I may forward to the Financial Ombudsman with my complaint.

This COMPLAINT is not going to go away and ignoring this problem could potentially make your situation worse. I therefore strongly recommend that you send written confirmation that no further contact will be made concerning the above account and confirmation that this matter is now closed.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

coolcait

Hiya firstlady

Lots of good advice already (as you'd expect from the peeps on here).

Just a wee additional point, going back to your first post. A creditor has to go through a LOT of hoops before they can get an 'exceptional attachment order'. They CANNOT send anyone to take items from your home unless they have one.

If they have implied otherwise, then it sounds like a breach of the OFT's guidance on debt collection practices (specifically a couple of paragraphs under the heading ' False representation of authority and/or legal position):

Para 2.4.b "Falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally cannot, for example, referring to bankruptcy or sequestration proceedings when the balance is too low to qualify for such proceedings or claiming a right of entry when no court order to this effect has been granted" (my highlighting);

Possibly Para 2.4.g "Taking or threatening to take court action in the wrong jurisdiction, for example, taking action against a Scottish debtor in an English court unless legally justified"

Don't let the baskets grind you down

fermi

Oops. Missed that you were in Scotland.

Will have to adjust the letter accordingly.;)

fermi

Adjusted for Scotland I think.

They should get the message anyway.

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

Acc/Ref No: *******************

FORMAL COMPLAINT under the complaint procedures set out by the Financial Ombudsman.

Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/2008, the contents of which are noted.

On xx/xx/2008 I wrote to <name of DCA> regarding a debt that was alleged to be owed by myself. That letter was received and signed for on xx/xx/2008 as confirmed by Royal Mail tracking.

In this letter I pointed out the following items:

1) I/we would point out that under The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Part 1 Prescription Section 6:

"If after an appropriate date, an obligation (an appropriate debt) has subsided for a continuous period of five years:

(a) without any relevant claim having been made in relation to the obligation, and
(b) without the subsistence of the obligation having been relevantly acknowledged;

then as from the expiration of that period the obligation shall be extinguished..."

2) The OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that "it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period".

3) The last written acknowledgment/payment of this debt was made over five years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me/us in the relevant period under Part 1 Section 6 of the above Act, I/we suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me/us to recover the alleged amount claimed.

4) The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".

Therefore it is clear that your original contact regarding this debt was in breach of the Office of Fair Trading Guideline referred to in item (2).

Furthermore, your second letter is in direct breach of Office of Fair Trading Guideline referred to in item (4) and constitutes harassment.

As you are no doubt aware, breaches of the OFT's Guidance on Debt Collection are treated seriously by the OFT when considering your fitness to hold a Consumer Credit License.

In particular the OFT has recently stated that:

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) requires debt collectors, businesses that offer goods or services on credit and/or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire to be licensed by the OFT. Following implementation of the OFT's new powers under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 on 6 April 2008, the companies could also have specific 'requirements' imposed on them by the OFT. If such a requirement was not complied with, the business concerned could be subject to a financial penalty of up to £50,000. The OFT can also refuse or revoke a licence if it decides that a trader is not fit to hold one. The OFT can take into account any circumstances which appear to be relevant when considering the fitness of an applicant or licensee, including evidence that the company has contravened the Data Protection Act 1988.

Therefore I wish to formally notify you that unless I received confirmation that this matter is now closed, then I will not hesitate to make a formal complaint to the 'Office of Fair Trading' and also to 'Trading Standards'.

Furthermore, any attempted contact (other than to confirm that this matter is now closed) by any:

• "trading style" of <name of DCA>
• constituent member of <name of DCA> Group.
• a third party acting on your behalf
• a third party that claims to have been legally assigned this debt

will result in an immediate complaint to the aforementioned regulatory bodies.

Also please note that any legal action you may consider will be FULLY and VIGOROUSLY defended, and you will be put to a strict proof of the alleged debt and any payment or acknowledgement that you claim within the relevant limitation period.

Furthermore, you may consider this letter a FORMAL COMPLAINT under the complaint procedures set out by the Financial Ombudsman. If you wish to correspond with myself with any other purpose than to confirm that this matter is now closed, then I require you to supply me with a written copy of your complaints procedure and a "final response" that I may forward to the Financial Ombudsman with my complaint.

This COMPLAINT is not going to go away and ignoring this problem could potentially make your situation worse. I therefore strongly recommend that you send written confirmation that no further contact will be made concerning the above account and confirmation that this matter is now closed.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.