1st Credit, mackenzie hall, need help.

cazza65

Thanks this recent letter is from 1st credit all other letters in 2006/7 where from mackenzie hall. Does that make a difference?

Thanks

Bertram_2

You could combine them . I added the references to Lim act 29(7) , because of your circumstances .

Dear Sir/Madam

Account no:

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

If such evidence should be available , please note 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".

Section 29 (7) states : but a right of action, once barred by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent acknowledgment or payment.

I/we would also point out that 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".

Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me/us in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that any payment or acknowledgement are not subject to section 29(7) , I/we suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me/us to recover the alleged amount claimed.

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".

Take note therefore , that this letter also serves as declaration as to the statute barred status of this alleged account , and thus I have no intention of making any payments towards now or at any time . Any contact from you or your representatives requiring monies will be treated as harassment and complaint made to the relevant authorities.

Unless the required information is forthcoming , then this matter is closed and I/we await your written confirmation to this effect. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and informing the OFT of your actions and a formal complaint to yourselves that may require the arbitration of the Financial Ombudsman and the subsequent fee incurred by yourselves , should I not be satisfied with your response .

I/we look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully



(Your Name) Print do not sign.

fermi

cazza65 wrote: »

Which letter are we better to send the one in the link or the one on the post?

The one below.

Amendment to the standard letter to reflect that the 6 years period was some time back has been made in RED.

1 High Street,
Newtown,
Kent
R21 4RH
Date

The Loan Company
Company House,
Church Street,
Newtown,
Kent,
R1 7HG

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

Dear Sir/Madam

Account No:

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

I/we would point out that 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".

I/we would also point out that 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".

It is clear that there was a period of 6 years where no correspondence/payment/acknowledgement or payment of this debt was made. Consequently, this debt is and remains statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980.

Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me/us in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I/we suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me/us to recover the alleged amount claimed.

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".

I/we await your written confirmation that no further contact will be made concerning the above account and confirmation that this matter is now closed.

I/we look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully




Mrs A N Other

Bertram_2

cazza65 wrote: »

Thanks this recent letter is from 1st credit all other letters in 2006/7 where from mackenzie hall. Does that make a difference?

Thanks

Well, no . No DCA can pursue a statute barred debt after receiving a SB letter , but it would have been a good and further incentive to include to have got Mackenzie hall to desist . I suppose you could ask them for a notice of assignment too, but you probably got enough on them for awhile to be getting on with .

Bertram_2

fermi wrote: »

And confuses the issue.

If it is "statute barred" it is barred. End of............

A lot of people seem to want to go for the cca option at the first sign of a dca coming after them . I can understand that , but there are many other criteria the dca need to fulfill before the need to request a cca . Sometimes these are overlooked , but can be equally useful in obstructing their pursuits .

cazza65

Thanks, sorry but I am confused by all the posts and what to send and what not to send. What am I best to send when they send their next letter? Thanks

Bertram_2

They are all variations on the same theme , you have a choice really . If you send my letter in post 13 , it is more aggressive , with the promise of complaints to follow if they do not abide . I would go down the aggressive path , but that is not for everyone .

At the moment , from what I see , they are awaiting a 10 day interval to establish wether a denial on your part constitutes that the person that they seek does not reside at that abode . This is lies , they will pursue you anyway and are just hoping you will phone them so they get your telephone number . Never phone them, not unless you like to annoy dca telephone operators for armchair sport , like I do . Eventually they will write to you , with an alleged account reference number and a demand for monies . At this point you may send off the letter of your choice .

Or do nothing , hold the letter back . See if they are persistent . They could just be phishing for people that'll respond . There are several ways to play it , hang back and see how determined they are . They might just send you one letter and you never hear from them again . Or take them on . You sound like somebody that would prefer not to take them on , so I'd wait a little while , see if they don't just go away . If they don't , if you start getting too many letters , then fire off that post 13 .

cazza65

Hi thanks for this, I am sure they will send another letter soon saying what the want etc so will send a letter then. thanks again. Will let you know when I get it.

Bertram_2

There is nothing to be gained by being polite to a dca . It is only a language they mistake for meekness and an opportunity to try and get (more) money out of you . The only common ground is threat and aggression where they are concerned .

cazza65

Hi well knew it would come got 2nd letter today. Asks to call to make payment and gives 3 different amount depending how fast pay. Going to send the letter in the morning so will see if get anything back. Will try letter in post 13 and see how that goes.
Thanks you all.