Strange letter from a Debt collection agency! re:SKY

rog2

Trying_really_hard wrote: »

I shall do as suggested and tell him not to ring back and will send of the CCA letters.

No need to request the cca, if the debt is old - use the 'statute barred' letter in the NFL link - there is no cost for this, whereas you must send a fee if you request the cca.
The onus is on lowell/red (same company) to prove any payment/written acknowledgement within the last six years.
PLUS - they are acting in contravention of the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines; http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf if they continue to harrass you, and you can report them to Trading Standards.

Trying_really_hard

Thank you Rog2. :T It is all very underhanded but luckily I can find other people who have had the same experience with these "people". Hopefully the letters should go off tomorrow and we should hear no more from them.

Here's hoping.

Debt_dodger_2

Hi there everyone. I can sympathise with you all. My wife received a letter from Lowell in December saying that they had bought a debt in her name from Barclaycard. The odd thing is, the letter was addressed to her maiden name, and we have been married for almost 13 years. I told her to ignore it, but then another letter - from Red Debt collections (Lowell in disguise) started getting a bit threatening. She wrote back, refusing to acknowledge the debt, and sent the £1 fee off recorded delivery to cover the standard CCA request. She also asked for all relevant statements. Lowell replied back 10 days later. They enclosed a very poor quality scanned image of the original application. The Terms and Conditions are completely unreadable. No statements were received from them regarding any outstanding balance. There is no date on the application, yet it is around 20 years old as that is the period that my wife lived at the address on the application, which is not the one where we live together now, and have done for the last 17 years.
The odd thing is, we remortgaged our house last year. When we did so the lender did an assessment of our outstanding debts to which we received a report. Lo and behold this 'phantom' barclaycard debt was not listed. Where than has it suddenly sprung from?

Under the advice of this forum I have instructed her to send off the standard 'statute barred' letter in response.

Lowell do not have our phone number, which is one good thing. They are also unaware of my wife's married name, which I have advised her not to disclose to try and avoid credit rating issues.

Any other advice?

My only concern, is this: By stating that she believes the alleged debt is now statute barred, is she then inadvertently admitting that there was a debt initially, but too much time has now elapsed for it to matter?

Ashropshirelady

I rang Barclaycard and they could see that I had once had an account with them in my maiden name over 20 years ago but could not give me any details. They admitted that all their old debts had been sold off to a debt collection agency and they had nothing more to do with it.

They suggested I pay the 86.78 to 'shut them up' as they put it but couldn't tell me that I owed the sum. They said the debt could be sold on to someone else and would be ongoing if I didn't settle it.

Since then received 2 more letters from the Red people but have just ingnored them.

rog2

Debt_dodger wrote: »

My only concern, is this: By stating that she believes the alleged debt is now statute barred, is she then inadvertently admitting that there was a debt initially, but too much time has now elapsed for it to matter?

It really does NOT matter, but I would suggest that she includes, as the first sentence of the letter:

"I do not acknowledge any debt to your company, or to any organisation that you claim to represent."

The 'phantom' Barclaycard debt would not have 'appeared' on your crf, because they are only allowed to publish records that are 6 or less years old.

Lowell/Red (same company) have undoubtedly scanned your crf in the hope of discovering an easy 'earner'.

An application form does NOT constitute a consumer credit agreement.

rog2

Ashropshirelady wrote: »

I rang Barclaycard and they could see that I had once had an account with them in my maiden name over 20 years ago but could not give me any details. They admitted that all their old debts had been sold off to a debt collection agency and they had nothing more to do with it.

They suggested I pay the 86.78 to 'shut them up' as they put it but couldn't tell me that I owed the sum. They said the debt could be sold on to someone else and would be ongoing if I didn't settle it.

Since then received 2 more letters from the Red people but have just ingnored them.

By Barclaycard's own admission, this 'debt' - if indeed it ever existed - is statute barred.

Why should you, or anybody, line the pockets of Lowell 'just to keep them quiet?

Lowell are a prime example of everything that is wrong in the questionable world of debt collection.

RobH007

Normally I don't take any notice of these types of letters (my wife got one for a debt which she never had, which was dated back to 1996!!!) However I really just want to stop these pocksie letters so shall I send a Statue barred letter and be done with it, or just ignore them? (bit worried that they could effect my credit rating, however can't see how as the debt is over 9 years old!)

rog2

RobH007 wrote: »

Normally I don't take any notice of these types of letters (my wife got one for a debt which she never had, which was dated back to 1996!!!) However I really just want to stop these pocksie letters so shall I send a Statue barred letter and be done with it, or just ignore them? (bit worried that they could effect my credit rating, however can't see how as the debt is over 9 years old!)

Send the Statute Barred letter.
This is NOT going to affect your credit rating in the slightest - do not worry.

Ashropshirelady

I just ignored the letters and then this letter came from Red last week.

I am writing to inform you that after further examination of your account it has become apparent that it is now subject to Section (5) of the Limitation Act 1980 and as such we have now closed the account and can confirm no further correspondence will be sent to you.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused by this matter.

Andrew Bartle
Chief Operations Officer