Wescot

ollie75

Wescot have been sending me letters, looking for an old Mint debt which has been bought by arrow global. I ignored their letters and ignored the phone calls. Tonight however I broke and answered the call. They wanted me to verify my name addres and date of birth, which I didn't. I got very angry with them and told them that I would not speak to them again unless in writing. I told them I did not acknowledge the debt and that they needed to first prove the debt by sending CCA, and then prove I have acknowledged it within 5 years, as i absolutely haven't. I then hung up.

Will they do what I ask or have I made a massive mistake in speaking with them? I'm really worried that I may have said something I shouldn't though I am 100% certain I said all the right words!
Thanks

fermi

Doesn't matter what you said on the phone, so no need to worry. You didn't say anything wrong anyway.

See what they write to you with, and go from there.

fermi

You also mention acknowledgement within 5 years? Does that mean you are in Scotland?

ollie75

Hi yes I am in scotland. The debt defaulted end of 2005/beginning of 2006 I believe. I've ignored it totally, but I recently bought a car on finance and low and behold wescot suddenly appeared looking for debt. They have my mobile and home numbers (ex-directory!!).

ollie75

Just found this website which states that you should not put Without Prejudice on your letters due to a case involveing HMRC. Anyone else heard this? I'm a tad worried now as I have just sent 3 letters asking for debt to be statute barred with this on them!
It was on the debt questions website. See below.

"It is 99% the same, except that NDL have not updated to take into account the High courts ruling against HMRC earlier this year, which means even if you use 'Without Prejudice' this can be taken as an admission of acknowledgement!!

HMRC have been BADLY stung by this ruling and they are appealing, but that will take about a year. Until then a really sharp DCA will be able to use a 'Without Prejudice' Statute barred letter as an admission of your acknowledgement.

Hence the change in wording WHICH DOES STAND UP IN COURT and has been tested as such!!

Tim"

fermi

ollie75 wrote: »

Just found this website which states that you should not put Without Prejudice on your letters due to a case involveing HMRC. Anyone else heard this? I'm a tad worried now as I have just sent 3 letters asking for debt to be statute barred with this on them!

I've seen that as well, but I've never been able to find anything further to back that up.

Given the number of a statute barred letters that I've seen go off, if it was an issue to be worried about then I think I would have come across it by now.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry.

bat-out-of-hell

fermi wrote: »

I've seen that as well, but I've never been able to find anything further to back that up.

Given the number of a statute barred letters that I've seen go off, if it was an issue to be worried about then I think I would have come across it by now.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry.

Just a thought, just as a recorded conversation on the telephone can not be used as evidence, normaly, a court does have the power to over-rule it, with justification, so in theory, the same could be applied to Without Prejudice letters.....

Though i have to back up fermis reply, never seen it happen yet, and leaves the court on untested ground...... a place they dont like to be, they prefer things like that to be tested in a higher court from what i have seen;)

saltnvinegar

ollie75 wrote: »

Just found this website which states that you should not put Without Prejudice on your letters due to a case involveing HMRC. Anyone else heard this? I'm a tad worried now as I have just sent 3 letters asking for debt to be statute barred with this on them!
It was on the debt questions website. See below.

"It is 99% the same, except that NDL have not updated to take into account the High courts ruling against HMRC earlier this year, which means even if you use 'Without Prejudice' this can be taken as an admission of acknowledgement!!

HMRC have been BADLY stung by this ruling and they are appealing, but that will take about a year. Until then a really sharp DCA will be able to use a 'Without Prejudice' Statute barred letter as an admission of your acknowledgement.

Hence the change in wording WHICH DOES STAND UP IN COURT and has been tested as such!!

Tim"

This really is like comparing grapes and banana's!

You have to look at these things in the context of each case that goes before a court. It would be incredibly unlikely that without prejudice communication would be allowed to be presented on a simple SB case and debt.

However I took a large company to court 8 years ago who slapped 'without prejudice' on everything they sent me and my solicitor argued successfully to allow the letters to be submitted as evidence so this is nothing new.

But thats my point..... you have to take each case on its own merits.

Ultimately if you've not stated 'I acknowledge the debt' the debt is SB. No DCA is going to go to the risk of court for a 6 year old debt and end up paying your costs and a counter claim!

This lot you are dealing with will scurry back under their rock when they realise you know your rights and will go off and hound someone who unfortunately is not as switched on.

Best

SnV

FTW

saltnvinegar wrote: »

This really is like comparing grapes and banana's!

You have to look at these things in the context of each case that goes before a court. It would be incredibly unlikely that without prejudice communication would be allowed to be presented on a simple SB case and debt.

However I took a large company to court 8 years ago who slapped 'without prejudice' on everything they sent me and my solicitor argued successfully to allow the letters to be submitted as evidence so this is nothing new.

But thats my point..... you have to take each case on its own merits.

Ultimately if you've not stated 'I acknowledge the debt' the debt is SB. No DCA is going to go to the risk of court for a 6 year old debt and end up paying your costs and a counter claim!

This lot you are dealing with will scurry back under their rock when they realise you know your rights and will go off and hound someone who unfortunately is not as switched on.

Best

SnV

If 6 years have elapsed without payment or the 'debtor' has acknowledged the debt in writing, and no CCJ exists, it's Statute Barred - end of.

If that summarises the OP's original query, then Wescot are screwed - they can do absolutely nothing.

They're also among the easiest of DCAs to see off anyway, but that's another matter.

DVardysShadow

ollie75 wrote: »

Just found this website which states that you should not put Without Prejudice on your letters due to a case involveing HMRC. Anyone else heard this? I'm a tad worried now as I have just sent 3 letters asking for debt to be statute barred with this on them!

I have no knowledge of the case referred to, but I think I can see where the words 'without prejudice' could let you down.

If you say something like "with reference to the debt for £X which I owe you" and you try to wrap this up with the words 'without prejudice', it is unlikely to protect you from action based on admitting the debt. You will have made a statement of fact and the word 'without prejudice' don't actually undo the statement.

Where the words 'without prejudice' can be used to good effect is on offers. So you can say 'in respect of the alleged debt of £X, I will pay you 20% provided you cease all collection activity, provided you accept within 14 days' and wrap it in 'without prejudice'. You will not have made a statement of fact, you will have made an offer. And the words 'without prejudice' just mean that you do not feel obliged to stick by your offer, and the other party cannot use the offer against you as an admission of anything.

So, in short, don't use the words to make an admission of fact deniable - just don't admit it in the first place. Do use the words to protect proposals to resolve a situation.