Statutory Demand insolvency wrong name

adonisuk

I defaulted on a loan with Abbey as was then, they passed the debt on to Capquest who have chased me. They have continually sent letters to me but have been using the wrong middle initial. I have ignored all these as they arent correctly mine. I have now been sent a statutory demand under section268 1 a of the insolvency act 1986 debt for liquidated sum payable immediately. This has again been issued with the wrong middle initial. where do i stand? what is my best course of action?? thanks

DarkConvict

You were mistaken to think a typing mistake when giving details to Capquest will resolve you of your responsibility to pay a debt. All they have to do is update the name to make it accurate. You as a person are responsible for all contracts you sign for credit, regardless of the name you currently use. If you know this is your debt (you admit it was your abbey loan) you need to pay for it.

Since they have started proceedings i think you need real professional advice right now, and i recommend you ring national debtline asap - http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/
FREEPHONE: 0808 808 4000
Monday to Friday 9am to 9pm

fatbelly

Capquest appear to be issuing a lot of Sds at the moment. On the ones I've come across, there is no real intention to petition for bankruptcy. It is just being used a threat. This is brave of them, as 1st Credit were reprimanded for this sort of behaviour a year ago.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/20-09

It would be good if everyone finding themselves in this situation would complain to the OFT about Capquest

I agree with DC that the typo does not invalidate the SD and that you need to run this past someone you can trust, like NationalDebtline.

How much of a threat this is depends on your situation (e.g. homeowner, other debts) and it might be best not to post that info on this site.

MS_Dolphin

A typo' may not mean a debt doesn't exist, but I'd imagine - just an opinion - that it would be enough to invalidate any documentation necessary for court proceedings; how wrong can it be - a middle initial, a forename or a surname. Why don't we just issue court papers 'to whom it may concern'

Is it also an assumption to say it is just a typo, maybe its indicative of the fact that the cc company don't have a valid agreement on file.

Even more interestingly, if this has been sold on for example in the name of John A Smith instead of John B Smith - I'd imagine Mr Smith would be very silly to settle a debt in the wrong name and then find the original creditor come calling.

Anyway, just my random thoughts, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually knows where the OP stands rather than those - like me just offering an opinion.

DarkConvict

I understand your thoughts Dolphin, but the OP admits it is his debt. It would be a different case if the OP denied very owing money to these people. You send a prove it letter instead.

I defaulted on a loan with Abbey as was then, they passed the debt on to Capquest who have chased me.

MS_Dolphin

DarkConvict wrote: »

I understand your thoughts Dolphin, but the OP admits it is his debt. It would be a different case if the OP denied very owing money to these people. You send a prove it letter instead.

I'm interested in giving the OP an answer to the query, but I'm also interested in the general principle - as you say above, what would be the situation if the OP denied owing the money?

PNPSUKNET

if court action was issued it would invalidate it, however if they issue papers in the first and second only really no leg to stand on. It has to be worth their while in making the op bankrupt.

DarkConvict

@MS Dolphin.
It does raise a good point. If they denied owing the money you would send the prove it letter, and would continue to do so until they actually send proof of the debt. If they failed to do so you raise a complaint with the DCA/FOS/OFT about there dubious practics and unfounded demands for money.

If they attempt court action when failing to provide proof of the debt, you have the perfect defence in court. No proof given so you never make payments without proof of liability, and if they do present proof in court you are allowed time to evaluate the new information. As such they are seen as wasting the courts time."