Received letter from HFO Services at my parents address

System

So there is still a chance that the OP can get a CCJ as an extra wedding present

FTW

redpete wrote: »

If you ignore it then your parents are likely to get more letters, possibly telephone calls and possibly doorstep calls.

Not if the parents write to the company telling them they must cease all contact since the 'debtor' doesn't live there. There's a good letter somewhere on this site for them to do that.

fomirster

You have received a standard threatogram from HFO, don't panic.

Ignore the £3000 they have come up with, this will be full of illegal charges and interest that they are not entitled to. They do this to frighten you, if you pay them , then they are happy or they offer you a discount for a full and final settlement (which still includes illegal fees and charges).

Have they sent you a Notice Of Assignment?

They are not entitled to charge interest or fees until they have actually made contact with you, and then they are bound by the terms of you orgional contract, not their T&C's , as they will tell you.

I would seriously not make them an offer, they are a lot of cards to be dealt at the moment, ie, a lot of agreement pre- 2007 are unenforcable, you could still claim back illegal charges and miss sold PPI etc.

It has no baring on your parents, they can tell them to shove off, you don't live here and they are under no obligation to tell HFO where you are.

It depends how you want to play this one, if you want to carryon avoiding HFO, or take them on. Either way I'll be happy to help. I have seen HFO off twice already. They are one of the lowest DCA's in my opinion, with their dirty tricks

fomirster

fermi wrote: »

Actually, yes. As daft as it sounds.

The Limitation Act specifically states that acknowledgement of the debt is only effective for starting the 6 year period over again IF it is in writing from the person liable AND signed by them. The creditor can write to you every day for the entire 6 years, and it would have no legal effect whatsoever.

However, if before the 6 years are up the creditor starts (and then obtains) a CCJ, then that won't apply.

A creditor can do that as court papers for a CCJ can legitimately be sent to your "last known" address.

If a creditor's stupid enough to let things go the full 6 years without them issuing that court claim, then the debt would indeed be statute barred.

Yes but if the court papers are issued to a previous address and there is no proof that they were served/received/acknowledged by the debtor, then there are good grounds for the debtor to apply to have the CCJ set aside.

System

fomirster wrote: »

Yes but if the court papers are issued to a previous address and there is no proof that they were served/received/acknowledged by the debtor, then there are good grounds for the debtor to apply to have the CCJ set aside.

Civil Procedure Rules state that it is sufficient to post them to the last known address.

A claim form is deemed to have been served on a defendant even if it has been returned to the court marked undelivered – provided that it was sent to the last known or usual address of the defendant. The claim form is even deemed to have been served if the claimant knows that the defendant has left that address – unless they know the defendant’s new address

fermi

!!!!!! wrote: »

Civil Procedure Rules state that it is sufficient to post them to the last known address.

Yep.

Specifies "Usual or last known residence."

fomirster

I don't disagree with the fact that they can do this, but a judgement by default can be challenged and if there is an absence of evidence that the debtor was personally served with the papers or knew about them, then they are entitled to apply for the CCJ to be set aside.

And through experience I have seen more than enough examples of these cases being granted the set aside

In fact I haven't seen one yet that hasn't been set a side when the papers have been served in the absence of the debtor and there is no proof otherwise

System

But it is not guaranteed.

fermi

fomirster wrote: »

I don't disagree with the fact that they can do this, but a judgement by default can be challenged and if there is an absence of evidence that the debtor was personally served with the papers or knew about them, then they are entitled to apply for the CCJ to be set aside.

They can always apply, but they would usually need other grounds as well. For example, reasonable grounds to defend the action.

If your only grounds to set aside are that you didn't receive the claim forms because you failed to provide the creditor with an up to date address where they could be served, then you are likely to fail.

fomirster

I completely agree, in respect to the fact you would need to demonstrate that you have reasonable grounds to defend the claim in the first place, for example unenforceable agreement, invalid default notice. Obviously there would be no point having a judgement set a side if it was definetely going to be given again.

In the case of the OP, there is a good chance that no enforcable agreement exists as it is at least pre 2006 and many other factors could be in play as well, especially considering the tangled webs that HFO weave
So the OP could just ignore and hope that it will become SB without any action being taken with the knowledge that if it was, it could be defended.

Obviously this is all hyperthetical and not advice I am giving to the OP, but rather enjoying the the debate