Old Credit Card Debt Help

rog2

SteveMetal wrote: »

If they reply stating it has a CCJ attached to it as '10past6' posted, what form of action do I take then?

Let's deal with this 'one stage at a time', SM. There are proceedures for getting a CCJ set aside, but it will, of course, depend on the circumstances. Also, if the CCJ is over six years old, then they would have to apply to the Courts for permission to enforce it - at that stage, not only would they need to convince the Court why the CCJ had not been enforced for six+ years, but you would, then, have the opportunity to state that you were unaware of any CCJ and, at worst, you could ask to have it 'redetermined'.

So, for the time being, send off the Statute Barred' letter. Lowell will have to give you concrete proof that the 'debt' is not statute barred, otherwise they simply can not enforce the debt through the courts.

One thing that they may do, though, is to appeal to your 'moral' obligation towards this 'debt' - just ignore that.

SteveMetal

OK thanks, all that about CCJ's sound's very complicated to me, i'll worry about that if it happens.
I will send off the letter tomorrow 'recorded' and take it from there.

Thanks again for all your help

10past6

rog2 wrote: »

Let's deal with this 'one stage at a time'

Rog2 is correct, I was just pointing out should they try and intimidate you by mentioning a CCJ, you have nothing to worry about.

SteveMetal

Yes, I'm expecting lots of threats and lies to try and get her to pay up, i'll just deny everything and demand proof of whatever they come back with.

SteveMetal

The Statute Barred letter has been sent, lets wait and see what their repsonse is...

SteveMetal

I have received a letter from Red Debt, the previous one was from Lowell (which I believe are the same company). This is what it says:

We would inform you that we have been appointed duly authorised collection agent for Lowell Portfolio and instructed to recover the outstanding monies due to our client.

As you have failed to settle your outstanding balance or enter into a repayment plan our client has now been instructed to collect the outstanding monise that you owe. You can either, pay the balance in full or arrange with us a monthly repayment plan.

This debt is not going to go away and ignoring this problem could potentially make your situation worse and we therefore strongly recommend you contact us now.

This letter was dated the same day in which they received the recorded Statute Barred letter I sent, so I assume they have read it and ignored it hoping we will pay up. I am also guessing that they do not have any evidence to provide stating that it is not Statute Barred as they would have provided it if they did have any paperwork.

What is the best course of action to do next, do I just ignore this letter, or do I sent out another Statute Barred letter addressed to Red Debt this time, or do I send out a harrasment letter threatening to report them?

I have also got hold of a free copy of the credit report and their is no mention of this Capitol One credit card on there and there is no CCJ's on it either.

rog2

SteveMetal wrote: »

What is the best course of action to do next, do I just ignore this letter, or do I sent out another Statute Barred letter addressed to Red Debt this time, or do I send out a harrasment letter threatening to report them?

I would wait for a week - it's 'possible' that they had 'instructed' Red before they had read your SB letter.
If Red contact you again, then yes you can threaten to report them to the Trading Standards as it is clearly a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines for two dcas (even if they are intrisically the same company) to be pursuing you for the same 'debt'.
Also, your SB letter has put the 'debt' in dispute and, until Lowell can prove otherwise, they would be in breach of the Data Protection Act by passing on your details to a third party.

SteveMetal

Thanks for your advice, I think I will send a Statuted Barred letter addressed to Red Debt anyway, this way their can be no confussion of them claiming they have not been passed on the 1st letter.

SteveMetal

We have just received another letter from Red Debt stating this:

We are disappointed that the monies you have previously had the benefit of are still outstanding and you have not taken responsibility to clear the oustanding debt.

Your account is now to be passed to our specialist recoveries unit who will ultimately decide the best form of action that is to be taken in order to recover the oustanding amount.

To avoid this going any further you must call us and arrange repayment. We WILL have a repayment plan that is affordable to you and that will fit within your current financial budget.

When you spent the monies originally you did it knowing it had to be repaid. You can repay your debt by either payment in full or a monthly repayment plan, to arrange repayment please call:
0844 844 4726


They have obviously isgnore the 2 Statute Barred letters which I have sent out.
After browsing previous posts, I found this letter which someone successfully used about a year ago:

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

Dear Sir/Madam

Ref No: ********

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

Thank you for your letter dated 06/04/2008, the contents of which are noted.

On 23/03/2008 I wrote to Lowell Portfolio LTD regarding a debt that was alleged to be owed by myself. That letter was received and signed for on 25/03/2008 as confirmed by Royal Mail tracking.

On 27/03/2008 I wrote to Red Debt Collection Services regarding a debt that was alleged to be owed by myself. That letter was received and signed for on 28/03/2008 as confirmed by Royal Mail tracking.

Despite my communication to you in those above letters mentioned, you continue to write to me regarding the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

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 receive 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 the Lowell Group (including Red Debt Collection Services & Hamptons Legal)
constituent member of the Lowell Group (including Red Debt Collection Services & Hamptons Legal)
a third party acting on your behalf
a third party that claims to have been legally assigned this alleged 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.


Do you think sending a copy of this letter would be the next best thing to do? I am not sure if all of those legal quotes are still relevant?

Sending a copy of this seemed to work for the person who originally used it which was about 12 months ago.

fermi

SteveMetal wrote: »

Sending a copy of this seemed to work for the person who originally used it which was about 12 months ago.

It did, and has with others since as well.