Thame Credit

Ineedlotsofhelp

To cut a long story short Thames Credit has contacted my husband about a debt that hasn`t been paid since Nov 2002, he sent a statute barred letter at the end of November as advised by National debtline and recently received a reply to that letter asking my husband to ring to answer a few questions to resolve the matter..........We don`t know whether to ring, reply by letter or to just ignore....Any advice would be grateful.

RAS

Hi

This is just an attempt to get you to pay up even though you are not legally required to. They will probably insist that the debt still exists (it does), suggest you are morally bankrupt if you do not pay (leave you to that) but fail to mention that the law and the courts have long taken the view that after 6 years of non-payment or acknowledgement, it is unfair for creditor to pursue a debt or that if they try to pursue it through the courts, they will get nowhere.

You would be better sending a copy of the letter with a complaint to the OFT, or telling Thanms that you will only deal with them in writing and CCing the letter to the OFT.

Ineedlotsofhelp

Hi Ras,

I don`t understand (it does) and (leave you to that), i am trying to draft a letter to Thames to tell them no contact will be made by phone and because it`s over 6 years ( 1st payment missed was Nov 2002) it is there responsibility to prove otherwise, i just don`t know how to word it so i don`t admit anything.

Deep_In_Debt

The debt still does exist but it is unenforceable because it is statute barred. The "leave you to that" bit probably refers to the fact that we all know what DCA's are like and some have had experience with Thames Credit who seem to buy statute barred debts in the hope that you don't know the law and that you will ring so that they can bully you into paying.

Correct me if I am wrong though but that's how I read it.

fermi

A letter along the lines of the one below may finally get your point across.

Might need to be adapted a little to suit your circumstances, but you get the idea.

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 further letters and threats are in direct breach of Office of Fair Trading Guideline referred to in item (4) and constitute 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.

Ineedlotsofhelp

So do you think we should reply to the letter and if so how can i word it without acknowledging the debt.... your help and advice is much appreciated

iolanthe07

The "leave you to that" bit

I took that to mean that you might feel you have a moral obligation to repay money you borrowed, even though the debt can't be enforced in court.

rog2

Ineedlotsofhelp wrote: »

So do you think we should reply to the letter and if so how can i word it without acknowledging the debt.... your help and advice is much appreciated

Just send them the letter as posted by fermi.

In continuing to pursue your husband, in connection with this debt, after he has informed them that, since the debt is now Statute Barred, he will no longer be making any payments, is in direct contravention of the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines, which clearly state that the creditor/dca should cease all further attempts to pursue this debt:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

rog2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

I took that to mean that you might feel you have a moral obligation to repay money you borrowed, even though the debt can't be enforced in court.

I have to admit that I find it 'amusing' that companies like Thames Credit could even have the gall to appeal to the 'morals' of a debtor when their own 'morals' are so often lacking.

iolanthe07

rog2 wrote: »

I have to admit that I find it 'amusing' that companies like Thames Credit could even have the gall to appeal to the 'morals' of a debtor when their own 'morals' are so often lacking.

Quite so. But two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not defending Thames Credit (far from it), but the debt is not satisfied or written off just because it is statute barred. So people might think that as they spent the money, and were presumably grateful for receiving the loan, then paying it back with the agreed interest is the decent and proper thing to do.

fermi

iolanthe07 wrote: »

Quite so. But two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not defending Thames Credit (far from it), but the debt is not satisfied or written off just because it is statute barred. So people might think that as they spent the money, and were presumably grateful for receiving the loan, then paying it back with the agreed interest is the decent and proper thing to do.

That argument may hold some water if the original creditor was Thames Credit.

They are not.

With a debt that age it has almost certainly been sold off and the original creditor has received all they will ever get for it. It doesn't matter how much you pay Thames, the original creditor will get no more. And it has likely been sold for a few pence n the pound.:rolleyes:

As some may have noticed I try to keep away from the 'moral' arguments here, but debt collection agencies that purchase "unenforceable" debts for a tiny fraction of their face value who then try to collect on the full amount are not due a lot of sympathy.;)