Is My Debt Statute Barred, What Do I Do Next……?

RedBullGivesYouWings

I will call them tomorrow

RedBullGivesYouWings

tryingtosave21 wrote: »

Hiya.

What I would do is send Blackhorse directly a cheque for £10 and ask for a subject access request under the Data Protection Act. This is a catalogue of all information they hold on you and should even include recordings of all recorded
conversations with them you had.

The default date is the date which you missed your payment and failed to rectify it, so this should have been 2005, which means it should not be on your credit file as 2008.

Stat barred is 5 years in Scotland so maybe it should have came off last year. If you have never made any contact with Blackhorse or any collection agents on behalf of them since 2005 and you have never made a payment to them then it is definitely statute barred.

I think requesting a subject access request in writing, enclosing the fee of £10 (This is the maximum fee) is the best way, because you will get ALL information they hold on you, including any written notes they have typed from you calling in, and you will be able to see the last time you spoke with them. Same goes with any company, if it was DLC u last spoke with, request the Subject Access Request from them.

They have to respond to you within 40 days. Once you get this and you know when the actual default date was, you can forward this onto callcredit etc and get it rectified. Hope that helps...

That is very helpful information! So what you are saying is Hillesden Security LTD had no right puting a Default on my file if the last people i spoke to was Blackhorse? What should i do then, will i wait until i have seen the subject access before i send a letter to Hillesden Security LTD stating that the Debt is Statute Barred? This Subject access, is that not what i have asked from them with the CCA letter i sent them?

Common_Sense_2

why don't you pay the money you owe, afterall, you borrowed the money, used it (and therefore obtained benefit from it) and by your own admission you can afford to pay it back.

Do the right thing instead of tryng to find a loophole to renege on your financial obligations

stclair

Common_Sense_2 wrote: »

why don't you pay the money you owe, afterall, you borrowed the money, used it (and therefore obtained benefit from it) and by your own admission you can afford to pay it back.

Do the right thing instead of tryng to find a loophole to renege on your financial obligations

The right thing would not to pay it back now as its statue barred anyway. That money could now be used the OPs childrens education or something similar. :-)

chalkie99

stclair wrote: »

The right thing would not to pay it back now as its statue barred anyway. That money could now be used the OPs childrens education or something similar. :-)

Hardly "the right thing" is it?

It is because so many people have taken the money and run, only to try and find a way out of paying back what they so willingly took and spent, that the rest of the country is in hock bailing them out. :mad:

stclair

chalkie99 wrote: »

Hardly "the right thing" is it?

It is because so many people have taken the money and run, only to try and find a way out of paying back what they so willingly took and spent, that the rest of the country is in hock bailing them out. :mad:

Well lifes a !!!!! at times we just all have to manage it our own way.

alastairq

why is it, when a large organisation...and especially a financial organisation, makes use of the Law for their own gain...regardless of the effect on others, than that is morally right and ok?

Yet when an individual makes use of the Law in the same manner, it is morally wrong and unjust?

It is best to take a closer, more cynical look at what we do in our own lives, before passing moral or ethical judgement on the actions of others.

And why do financial matters raise so many moral and ethical hackles, yet moral behaviour in other areas is totally ignored?

It says much about our society if money matters more than fidelity, or simple respect for others.

Statute-barred?

Well, given the huge profits that bank makes...if they cannot get their administration on the ball, then that's just tough.


If not, then what about PPI?

Or is that a different moral issue?

donna-c-86

^^ couldnt agree more

tryingtosave21

RedBullGivesYouWings wrote: »

That is very helpful information! So what you are saying is Hillesden Security LTD had no right puting a Default on my file if the last people i spoke to was Blackhorse? What should i do then, will i wait until i have seen the subject access before i send a letter to Hillesden Security LTD stating that the Debt is Statute Barred? This Subject access, is that not what i have asked from them with the CCA letter i sent them?

If, on your credit file, the debt shows as "Hillesden Security Ltd" it means that they have purchased the debt from Black Horse, and they do have a legal obligation to add it to your credit file under their name. But... if you defaulted in 2005, this should be the date that is on the default, not the date they purchased it! If it does say their name on your credit file, they own the debt now and Blackhorse are completely unassociated with it now. I think you may be able to still contact BH and request this Sub Acc Req, and then you can find out when it defaulted.

A CCA is different to the SAR, its only £1. I work for a debt collection agency and we rarely get Subject Access Requests, but when we do, we have to provide recordings of all conversations, written notes in accounts etc.

Hope that helps you x

RedBullGivesYouWings

tryingtosave21 wrote: »

If, on your credit file, the debt shows as "Hillesden Security Ltd" it means that they have purchased the debt from Black Horse, and they do have a legal obligation to add it to your credit file under their name. But... if you defaulted in 2005, this should be the date that is on the default, not the date they purchased it! If it does say their name on your credit file, they own the debt now and Blackhorse are completely unassociated with it now. I think you may be able to still contact BH and request this Sub Acc Req, and then you can find out when it defaulted.

A CCA is different to the SAR, its only £1. I work for a debt collection agency and we rarely get Subject Access Requests, but when we do, we have to provide recordings of all conversations, written notes in accounts etc.

Hope that helps you x

Would it be worth requesting a Subject Access Request from both Black Horse and Hillesden Security Ltd, so i could compare them and make sure they match? I only say this as I feel Hillesden Security Ltd have may have just made up there date