Need help with letter wording

fermi

So the loan that is being claimed is an unsecured one that you don't think that you ever took out in the first place?

moosemazz

fermi wrote: »

So the loan that is being claimed is an unsecured one that you don't think that you ever took out in the first place?

I know we didnt take it out .

nottoolate

cant national debtline help with the wording?

[Deleted User]

fermi wrote: »

So the loan that is being claimed is an unsecured one that you don't think that you ever took out in the first place?

moosemazz wrote: »

I know we didnt take it out .

Shouldn't the OP be sending a Prove It letter :huh:

ValHaller

moosemazz wrote: »

I know we didnt take it out .

If you did not take out the loan, you should be arguing that the alleged debt is false.

If you go down the road of 'Statute Barred' you are implying that it might have been your debt and you are into a whole world of grief about rights of set off between L&G and NRAM.

It seems to me that the endowment may be assigned to NRAM, so L&G feel obliged to pay NRAM. Instruct L&G in writing not to forward anything to NRAM as the alleged debt is in dispute.

nottoolate

i suppose the op's main concern is to stop them paying the money over? i agree though that statute barred is the wrong approach for that.

fermi

So you did not receive the money from the alleged loan?

You say the loan was taken out in 1999 at your old address? Was this while you were resident there? Is there anyone who could have used your details to obtain the loan?

This is all very confusing and I would suggest you go back to NDL for another talk.

The debt being statute barred will not in itself bar a right of offset, so that seems a non starter. However, whether the loan is your debt and whether they can legitimately exercise a right of offset between these accounts is very debatable. I agree that this seems the more fundamental issue to pursue.

moosemazz

fermi wrote: »

So you did not receive the money from the alleged loan?

You say the loan was taken out in 1999 at your old address? Was this while you were resident there? Is there anyone who could have used your details to obtain the loan?

This is all very confusing and I would suggest you go back to NDL for another talk.

The debt being statute barred will not in itself bar a right of offset, so that seems a non starter. However, whether the loan is your debt and whether they can legitimately exercise a right of offset between these accounts is very debatable. I agree that this seems the more fundamental issue to pursue.

I seem to be running around in rings and getting nowhere , NDL are still saying to send the Stat Lim letter as well as a tweeked prove it letter plus remind them that they do not have any authority from us to pay anyone from what is essentially OUR money . and that we are both now suffering even further distress because of their actions

We were not living in the address in1999 ,having moved previously .and yes the probability is that someone may have been able to access any mail that arrived after we left despite us putting in a redirection . AS LG still have me down in my maiden name , it looks as if over the yeras they have never amended our details and continued to send letters to that address.
I have spoken tpo them today and reiterated our dilemma , they will not even release the undisputed amount to us .
I am all but done and really dont know what more we can do .

[Deleted User]

moosemazz wrote: »

AS LG still have me down in my maiden name , it looks as if over the years they have never amended our details and continued to send letters to that address.

That would've stopped the letters being redirected.

moosemazz

Update , we've received a letter from NR stating they have no further interest in our policy