DCA enforce or not after 14 years?

shinyhead

I would think that the court case simply fizzled out as Marlin probably didn't persue, knowing that without a CCA their case would have very probably been thrown out.
If you ring the court and find out then it would put your mind at ease.

Can I ask just out of curiosity when did you send off the CCA request. Was it before or after they served court papers?

Generally the Rankine case is very weak and as posted here there are other cases that override it. My opinion is they're just trying to scare you.

RAS

terriS

If this case fizzled out, please let us know as you have the perfect evidence to make a complaint against Marlin.

terriS

Just to let you know that i phoned the court but they closed 5 mins before! Will definatly call them tomorrow, and will post the reply i get from them.

My request for the CCA was 13th March and copy of the claim form from the court filed by Marlins was dated 20th March!
I thought this was illegal in itself, once a CCA has been requested they are not allowed to persue through the courts until the request has been fulfilled??

Will be back tomorrow with the update from the court.....

shinyhead

It seems rare for legal action to start after a CCA request has been received and not fulfilled. Had you been dealing with Marlin for a while before then?

It strikes me that they'd already started the action and it had taken a while for the court to process the paperwork. Your CCA request and the court stuff simply crossed. Did you receive acknowledgement of your CCA request before or after the court papers?

terriS

They replied on the 18th March so two days before the court claim form was issued. I had been dealing with Marlin for about a month prior to that, and before that DCA Phoenix Recoveries had the debt which they purchased from HSBC. Marlin got really nasty as soon as they took the debt over, and refused my offer of repayment, stating that they required further personal financial details about me, which was when i requested the CCA.

shinyhead

It seems Marlin usually do. Is it Marlin on the court stuff or Phoenix? Did you know that Phoenix and Marlin are the same outfit?

Sorry if I seem nosey but I'm simply curious that it was in the process of going to court even though you'd sent in a CCA request. My opinion is not and as said before it all crossed at some point. That's why they didn't carry it through as to continue effectively meant that they were breaking the law.

I simply wonder if it's a new tactic by them- starting legal proceedings even if a CCA has been requested and the relying on ignorance of the defendant.

terriS

Well, yes i think i do now, although their paperwork was different as in headed paper, can't remember the address though to compare as rather foolishly i got rid of all Phoenix paperwork when Marlin 'took over' the debt!! The court paperwork states the claimant is Phoenix Recoveries (UK)Ltd Sarl-Marlin Recoveries but all correspondence this year has been on Marlin Financial Services headed paper and Mortimer Clark Solicitors (theirs)

shinyhead

Thanks for your replies TerriS. It's helped me do as my signature says! (except I don't have much more hair to lose!) I'm sure that once you've called the court tomorrow your mind will be put at ease.

terriS

Thank you for your support, will post tomorrow with the court news...

terriS

Well, i have spoken to the court today and they have confirmed that they received Marlins Allocation Questionnnaire on the 7th July which was in the courts time scale that they had extended. She explained that the court has had a huge back log and still has and i will hear from the court "at some stage"!!

So it seems as though Marlin have complied with the court and are still persuing in that direction, but what i don't understand it why after all this time do i get a letter from Mortimer Clark referring to my defence filed back in March, quoting this 'Rankine' case. Is it simply that they have found this extract and are trying to scare me without going to court? And what are my chances as they have already admitted the CCA is "no longer available because the agreement dates back 14 years"? Surely thats irrelevent? Should i respond to this letter or just ignore them until the court catches up with their back log and we get a date?