Threat of Bankruptcy - Debt not mine.

Freepost

fermi wrote: »

Depends what other type of debt they collect. If it's just rent arrears and that sort of non OFT regulated debt, then it's possible (I think) that they do not need a CCL?

So are you saying that the company doesn't actually need to exist anywhere except in the mind of Karl Nolan? No registration or anything ... I know you haven't said that I'm just seeking clarification.

Thanks
F.

warwicktiger

AnnieDaPea wrote: »

Apparently, it is for sale to any sucker with £129,950 to spare.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-10427070.html

Wonder, would the agent disclose the name of the sitting tennant?

AnnieDaPea

fermi wrote: »

Depends what other type of debt they collect. If it's just rent arrears and that sort of non OFT regulated debt, then it's possible (I think) that they do not need a CCL?

If Karl Nolan or one of his companies were offering to introduce borrowers to loan brokers, would he or they need a Licence as a Credit Intermediary?

AnnieDaPea

Freepost wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier, my children do stupid things but they are far from stupid and I firmly believe that they would never put my name to a document without my knowledge, they know the difference between right and wrong. To put my name to a document is clearly very wrong .... they know this!

I have just spoken to my son and asked the question did he make me a guarantor for the flat .. absolutely not, the only thing he did was to give a contact address for next of kin.

I would not send the letter, as that would only delay matters and the clock is ticking!

Treat the Statutory Demand as real and get it set aside before it can do you any real harm. Claim costs if possible.

arcon5

The letter is not great imo. Loose the remarks and keep it factual and objective. And lets not forget there is a massive likelihood that your son does n fact owe them money.

Freepost

AnnieDaPea wrote: »

I would not send the letter, as that would only delay matters and the clock is ticking!

Treat the Statutory Demand as real and get it set aside before it can do you any real harm. Claim costs if possible.

How can it harm me his claim is not true. It is always possible that KN as falsified the records but surely that would be very stupid.

Do I have to doubt my son and consider that he may have signed me as guarantor? That's a very big step for me and I don't think I can do that .... I trust my children!

Freepost

arcon5 wrote: »

The letter is not great imo. Loose the remarks and keep it factual and objective. And lets not forget there is a massive likelihood that your son does n fact owe them money.

Perhaps he does owe them money but how much because it keeps changing. One thing for sure I don't owe them anything.

The letter wasn't meant to be serious, just me letting of a bit of steam.

F.

Freepost

AnnieDaPea wrote: »

Treat the Statutory Demand as real and get it set aside before it can do you any real harm. Claim costs if possible.

How do I do this, is it easy to do? And how do I claim costs against NG Collections who we assume is a fictitious company or Beckhall Properties?

F.

AnnieDaPea

Freepost wrote: »

How can it harm me his claim is not true.

It could harm you if you are bankrupted.

This is not like a threat to sue, where you might wait for the N1 and then enter a defence. You cannot afford to wait. Get proper legal advice from a solicitor, get the Statutory Demand set aside and claim your costs from this odious rogue.

If you send a letter to "NG Collections", they will take their time to respond - if they ever do. The deadline for getting the SD set aside will have passed and they will try to make you bankrupt. Even the threat of proceedings in the London Gazette will alarm any other creditors you may have and they will want to be paid, too.

Delay in this matter and you could lose your house. :eek:

AnnieDaPea

arcon5 wrote: »

The letter is not great imo. Loose the remarks and keep it factual and objective. And lets not forget there is a massive likelihood that your son does n fact owe them money.

I have seen a post on another site where it seems that the alleged debt had been incurred after a tenant had left a flat, even though the flat had been occupied by another tenant at the time and even though the letting agent had fully repaid the first tenant's deposit.

It is certainly difficult to understand, then, how that first tenant's guarantor might be liable for any alleged arrears.

Nor does either case provide an explanation why "NG Collections" seems unknown to the Data Protection Register. Even if they do not need a Consumer Credit Act Licence to collect alleged tenancy debts, they must have notified the ICO of their activities.