Vodafone Chasing 7 Year old bill! What to do!

cupraturbo

In Short

I have recieved a phone call from a debt collection agency for an unpaid bill 7 years ago! (Absolutley no contact between 1999 and 2007)

I lost my job back then and i had to split a bill into two payments, both of which were made.

I hear nothing more on the matter and have completly forgotten about it. Last week my parents receieved a threatening call from a debt collection agency in scotland for an outstanding amount of £100!

I have checked this with vodafone and they wont do anything and tell me its for me to deal with the collection agency.

I dont have my bank statements etc from this long ago and no way of proving this.

All i get from the debt agency is allot of abuse being called a liar and being sworn at! They even had a go at my mother who answered the phone.

After speaking with vodaphone they have said they wrote the debt of in 2000.

Ive had two vodafone contracts since this time and at the same address for a period of over 5 years. Vodafone said they cant do anything as they wrote it of and because it is over 6 years old they no longer hold the details for the account.

What do i do? where do i stand?

file_wizzard

Try this care of the "Debt Help U.K" board

It is also worth noting that even if they can provide the documentation ( exeptionaly unlikely) that if you truly havnt had any contact for over 6 years then the debt will be statute barred under the limitations act anyway. i.e no longer legaly owed


Copy of letter to use if debt has been purchased by a debt-buyer. Enclose a £1 postal order in payment of the statutory fee and send by Recorded Delivery. They have 12 (working) days to respond. If they don't supply it within 30 days, they've committed a criminal offence. Report them to your local Trading Standards office.

I do not acknowledge ANY debt to your company. I require you to supply the following documentation before I will correspond further on this matter.

1. You must supply me with a true copy of the alleged agreement you refer to. This is my right under your obligation to supply a copy of the agreement under the legislation contained within s.78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.77 (1) for fixed sum credit) - your obligation also extends to providing a statement of account. I enclose a £1 postal order in payment of the statutory fee, PO Serial Number xxxxx.

2. A signed true copy of the deed of assignment of the above referenced agreement that you allege exists.

3. You are notified that you are obliged to supply these documents, whether you are the original creditor or not under S189 of the CCA 1974.

Non-compliance with my request is a criminal offence under the above Act and will result in a report being submitted to the relevant statutory authorities.

As you are aware, a credit agreement that is not properly documented and signed by the customer is totally unenforceable under the CCA and therefore is a complete defence to any court claim that is issued.

Take note at this stage, that any legal action you may contemplate will be both vigorously defended and contested.

millsee

file_wizzard wrote:

that if you truly havnt had any contact for over 6 years then the debt will be statute barred under the limitations act anyway. i.e no longer legaly owed.

No.

The debt is always owed until the day you repay it. The Statute of Limitations simply means you cannot enforce the debt through the courts.

This doesn't stop creditors contacting you within - of course - the bounds of the harrassment laws.

file_wizzard

millsee wrote:

No.

The debt is always owed until the day you repay it. The Statute of Limitations simply means you cannot enforce the debt through the courts.

This doesn't stop creditors contacting you within - of course - the bounds of the harrassment laws.

Moral obligations are an entirely different subject, and one that has been discussed here many times before.

Legally the limitations act stands and the debt is unenforceable and the original agreement legally null and void.

Also in terms of ongoing contact if the DCA / creditor can not substantiate their claim then they have no reason to continue contact.

fatbelly

Ofice of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance deals with this as follows

2.14. In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:a.we accept legally the debt exists; b.it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be unfair as follows:
•it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period
•if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt
•it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, e.g. falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal provisions, and
•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.

millsee

file_wizzard wrote:

Moral obligations are an entirely different subject, and one that has been discussed here many times before.

Legally the limitations act stands and the debt is unenforceable and the original agreement legally null and void.

Also in terms of ongoing contact if the DCA / creditor can not substantiate their claim then they have no reason to continue contact.

I'm sorry, but my original comment still stands. I'm not talking morally here, I'm talking legally. I think you have your facts muddled.

In terms of the OFT guidance (who incidentally also acknowledge that the debt still stands), the reference is to recovery and I tend to agree with their guidance. However, this should not detract from the fact that, simply because a debt cannot be pursued through the court, it doesn't mean that is it not still there.

My comment was not to the OP and what they should do (FWIW, I personally would tell Vodaphone to take a running jump) but to point out that the debt legally still stands. It is the method of enforcement which is time-barred.

You are correct about the substantiation of the claim via a signed contract, but I don't think this is the issue here.

Dead_Eye_Jones

All this legal talk aint gonna mean jack when a 7 foot Scot turns up, forces their way in, and starts taking posessions. They dont sound like the kind of peeps who would care about 'paper work' lol. Id buy a big dog and a steal door.

Good luck!

realwildone

All this legal talk aint gonna mean jack when a 7 foot Scot turns up, forces their way in, and starts taking posessions. They dont sound like the kind of peeps who would care about 'paper work' lol. Id buy a big dog and a steal door.

Now thats illegal

Hereward

Dead_Eye_Jones wrote:

All this legal talk aint gonna mean jack when a 7 foot Scot turns up, forces their way in, and starts taking posessions. They dont sound like the kind of peeps who would care about 'paper work' lol. Id buy a big dog and a steal door.

Good luck!

True, but then you could pursue the agency for trespass, forcible entry and theft, all of which are very serious offences as they wouldn't be able to get a court order to legally possess your stuff.

xela_17

Surely the point is that the OP said there is no debt as they split the bill into two payments and paid them both. Therefore, someone (i.e. Vodafone) has made a mistake.

file_wizzard

millsee wrote:

I'm sorry, but my original comment still stands. I'm not talking morally here, I'm talking legally. I think you have your facts muddled.

In terms of the OFT guidance (who incidentally also acknowledge that the debt still stands), the reference is to recovery and I tend to agree with their guidance. However, this should not detract from the fact that, simply because a debt cannot be pursued through the court, it doesn't mean that is it not still there.

My comment was not to the OP and what they should do (FWIW, I personally would tell Vodaphone to take a running jump) but to point out that the debt legally still stands. It is the method of enforcement which is time-barred.

You are correct about the substantiation of the claim via a signed contract, but I don't think this is the issue here.

I think the key word here is guidance, last time I checked the OFT don’t write the law, however their input is accepted as an approved code of practice.

anyway getting back to the original question the OP states that as far as he is concerned he has paid the debt, if the DCA / creditor can not prove to the contrary then they have no further recourse or reason to make further contact