8yr debt

leajoe20

I received a letter last year advising a debt company had bout my debt from a Credit card company, which they say they had sent proof of my so called payment made in last few years. I followed advice on this site regarding statute bared and to bog off basically, they still conTinue to send me letters chasing payment, and my lastest one I have received is threatening a bailiff to come And take my things to pay the debt or by way of attachmenT of earnings, can they do this at all, please advise. Thank you!

Culex

leajoe20 wrote: »

I received a letter last year advising a debt company had bout my debt from a Credit card company, which they say they had sent proof of my so called payment made in last few years. I followed advice on this site regarding statute bared and to bog off basically, they still conTinue to send me letters chasing payment, and my lastest one I have received is threatening a bailiff to come And take my things to pay the debt or by way of attachmenT of earnings, can they do this at all, please advise. Thank you!

No - of course they can't. A warrant of execution (bailiff visit) or an attachment to earnings order could only be obtained if you had defaulted on a County Court Judgement and, as the debt appears to be statute barred, their only means to get a CCJ would be by default or by perjury and/or forgery.

Please copy out the letter here for instruction and/or entertainment.

Please also report those seriously shonky scoundrels to your local Trading Standards department, in person if at all possible.

Tixy

Follow up letter if they won't stop chasing a SB debt - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=34906247&postcount=4

and report them to the OFT and, as said above, trading standards.

Culex

Tixy wrote: »

Follow up letter if they won't stop chasing a SB debt - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=34906247&postcount=4

One might perhaps point out that there was a typo in the above, copied verbatim from the OFT press release, when the "Data Protection Act 1988" was mentioned.

The OFT really meant the Data Protection Act 1998 rather than the Data Protection Act 1988 which is an Irish law!

Such an uncorrected mistake can only have been the result of the OFT having been disturbed in the middle of its hibernation cycle.