Red/Lowell - help please

fermi

Culox:

The OP now thinks that this is probably a different debt that wasn't ever subject to a CCJ.

abisparkle wrote: »

Thanks guys. I've done a bit more research and I had two Abbey accounts. The one with the CCJ I think I paid which was collected by Wescot. The other one (the one they're trying to collect now) I think was just ignored and has been chased occasionally over the years by various DCA's. I can't be sure though and my memory is rubbish. All I know is that I'm certain I have not acknowledged or corresponded about this for over 6 years.

Which is why I said to send the standard statute barred letter.

If it is not the debt with the CCJ on it, then that tells the DCA to "fook" off.

If it is the debt with the CCJ, then the DCA will have to prove the judgement or otherwise get lost.

hey might not even be aware of the judgement. I've seen a few older judgement debts sold on, and the buying DCA was never given the CCJ paperwork in the sale. They didn't even realise there was one.

So, send the standard letter which stands a good chance of burying the issue straight off.

If it doesn't and there is a CCJ, then the DCA will have to prove they can act on it.

Culex

FTW wrote: »

If they're offering 50%, they know they have no chance.

Apart from the alleged debt being only £300, can you conceive any reason why the DCA seems not to have threatened bankruptcy?

Culex

fermi wrote: »

Culox:

Who's he?

Culex sum...

So, send the standard letter which stands a good chance of burying the issue straight off.

If it doesn't and there is a CCJ, then the DCA will have to prove they can act on it.

Section 24 does seem to suggest that they won't.

fermi

Culex wrote: »

Section 24 does seem to suggest that they won't.

On the surface it does.

But if you read around there seems to be much opinion and even case law to say otherwise. Mostly hinging on what constitutes "action" under the meaning of that clause.

I haven't had a look for it for quite some time, but I think that the prevalent opinion that the only "action" precluded would be "execution against goods" by a bailiff etc.... while other methods of enforcement would not be barred or would remain at the discretion of the court.

FTW

Culex wrote: »

Apart from the alleged debt being only £300, can you conceive any reason why the DCA seems not to have threatened bankruptcy?

Does there need to be any other reason?

Lowell are grabbing at s***, but then again, they so often do.

If a DCA were 100% confident at being able to 're-coup' the balance, they wouldn't be offering any kind of discount, let alone 50%.

Culex

fermi wrote: »

On the surface it does.

But if you read around there seems to be much opinion and even case law to say otherwise. Mostly hinging on what constitutes "action" under the meaning of that clause.

I haven't had a look for it for quite some time, but I think that the prevalent opinion that the only "action" precluded would be "execution against goods" by a bailiff etc.... while other methods of enforcement would not be barred or would remain at the discretion of the court.

I can see that I'll have to get a lawyer or three to look at this.

Blaise

FTW wrote: »

If they're offering 50%, they know they have no chance.

I got a letter yesterday from red/lowell offering me 85% discount - lol

this was after a letter sent disputing the money owed and that it is SB....

The debt in question is over 14 years old and is for just under £600. I don't know why they wasted their time and mine.

I was thinking of accepting their offer... but have changed my mind now.. Not going to give them a penny... because they know they are acting irresponsible and pursuing debt which is unenforceable anyway..

fermi

Blaise wrote: »

I got a letter yesterday from red/lowell offering me 85% discount - lol

this was after a letter sent disputing the money owed and that it is SB....

The debt in question is over 14 years old and is for just under £600. I don't know why they wasted their time and mine.

I was thinking of accepting their offer... but have changed my mind now.. Not going to give them a penny... because they know they are acting irresponsible and pursuing debt which is unenforceable anyway..

Back in a sec with a link....

fermi

There is a letter in this thread to send to Red if you feel you need it.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=881597

king100

my god some of the stuff I post is actually correct. WOW