Shop Direct Finance / MKRR / MKDP LLP

Dave_Sk

Hi there,

My wife has just had a second letter from MKRR asking for money which she wasn't aware she owed.

It's in her maiden name so it must be a few years old, if it actually exists.

I've read a few other posts here which suggest sending the "prove it" letter which is knocking around.

My question is, should we send the "prove it" letter even though it's in an old name? And do we sign it with her married name or the maiden name?

Not sure it will make a big difference either way but I want to get this right and not give them any ammo....

Cheers!
Dave

fermi

How old exactly?

In other words, if it was her debt, how long would it been since she last made a payment to the debt or acknowledged it in writing?

Dave_Sk

If it is her debt then I'm pretty sure it's over the 6 year mark. 99% sure on that as I've handled all the money for over 6 years and I don't remember it.

fermi

OK.

Then I suppose you have to first decide whether you are going to respond, or whether you leave it a while to see what happens and until you are 100% sure?

If you do want to respond then there is the basic prove it letter in this link.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=11570893&postcount=2

Or there is this one that in addition disputes the debt as being statute barred.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=34906257&postcount=5

Dave_Sk

Thanks, I've had a look at those thread. My real sticking point was the fact that it was sent under her maiden name. If we send the prove it letter so we sign it in her old name?

Just don't know if we should even respond as it's in her old name.

Or am I thinking about it too much?

fermi

If you are going to respond then I would do it in her old name. No point giving them info they clearly don't have already.

The question I suppose is do you respond?

If they haven't traced the new name, then this letter is surely very speculative, and they cannot be very sure that it has even gone the correct person or address?

Personally I might be tempted to just ignore it for now.....

Depends on how you feel I suppose?

habitualangel

I have had something similar, maiden name - married 1999 and divorced 2004 but kept my married name, have no idea what for - had 1 letter and to be fair never got round to sending the prove it letter, it was only a couple of weeks ago, then had a text on my mobile phone so sent it then amended it slightly to say I have not been known by this name for 12 years - did it in my married name, have just come home today to another letter from them although the date on it means my prove it letter has probably crossed in the post. Figured if they have address and mobile number they would know my married name anyway. Just hoping its the end of it 2 letters and a text in a couple of weeks they are obviously trying to get what they can and try to scare people, I haven't a clue what this is for and await their response.

Dave_Sk

fermi wrote: »

If you are going to respond then I would do it in her old name. No point giving them info they clearly don't have already.

The question I suppose is do you respond?

If they haven't traced the new name, then this letter is surely very speculative, and they cannot be very sure that it has even gone the correct person or address?

Personally I might be tempted to just ignore it for now.....

Depends on how you feel I suppose?

Thanks so much!

Could you let me know the pros and cons of ignoring them and sending the "prove it" letter?

fermi

Dave_Sk wrote: »

Thanks so much!

Could you let me know the pros and cons of ignoring them and sending the "prove it" letter?

Pro

- If you are sure the debt is statute barred then this should end the matter as soon as possible. Once you've told them that the debt is staute barred and you will not being paying, then they are obliged to naff off and leave you alone.

Cons

- If it is not SB yet, or you are wrong in your estimate, then it will confirm that their letters are getting through to someone who may be liable.
- If not SB it may just make them up the 'ante'.
- If they happen to have a CCJ via a past address (very unlikely) then the debt cannot be SB even if it is over 6 years.

Johnpj

fermi wrote: »

Pro

- If you are sure the debt is statute barred then this should end the matter as soon as possible. Once you've told them that the debt is staute barred and you will not being paying, then they are obliged to naff off and leave you alone.

Cons

- If it is not SB yet, or you are wrong in your estimate, then it will confirm that their letters are getting through to someone who may be liable.
- If not SB it may just make them up the 'ante'.
- If they happen to have a CCJ via a past address (very unlikely) then the debt cannot be SB even if it is over 6 years.

The big issue here is the CCJ one. Some debt companies will obtain a CCJ just before the 6 years is up so that the debt does not become statute barred. They can obtain these without the debtor knowing if they can prove to the court they have made reasonable efforts to track the debtor.

You can search the registry trust in london for a fee, using your old address/es and your old name.

Be carefull about getting your credit report with old name and addresses, as if your lucky it might not be linked. By requesting a credit report and providing all the details you will link everything up and give them the chance to recover money much easier.

fermi

Johnpj wrote: »

The big issue here is the CCJ one. Some debt companies will obtain a CCJ just before the 6 years is up so that the debt does not become statute barred.

Honestly, very very few do that.

Plus, if there was a CCJ in place then it's something that the DCA is likely to mention in there letter. I can't imagine them not using that as an extra way to pile the pressure on.

The OP can check for a CCJ, but odds are there isn't one.