EOS Solutions Chasing Debt

DentedTiara

My partner has received a number of letters from EOS Solutions regarding a debt to South East Water, the debt relates to a property that he was a lodger in, and moved out from 2005.
He was not financially responsible for the household bills, but his landlord was notorious for spending his rent money on booze instead of the bills, hence why he moved out.

EOS are saying he owes them approx £500 for the outstanding bill. The first he as ever heard of this was in August 2013 when EOS sent the first letter.

We have sent the template statute barred letter, but they have sent back a report showing the last payment was made on 11th October 2006. Furthermore there is a second name on the report, which is his old landlords name.

I have pulled together the below and wondered if anything in it will likely drop him in it and give EOS license to carry on pushing for the debt.

Any advice on it would be fantastic!

Thanks!


Thank you for sending through the document in your letter dated 27th September 2013.

I would point out that I have no knowledge of any such debt being owed toyour client.

The document you have sent through serves to confirm that the debt you are pursuing is statute barred.

The last payment made by whoever wasresponsible for the alleged debt was made on 11th October 2006 via aPost Office Transcash payment, there has been no further written correspondence, acknowledgement or payment since this date.

Therefore under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5, the expiration date for the allegeddebt was 11th October 2012.

"An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued".

I would also point out that in their Debt Collection Guidance,the OFT regard the following unfair or improper business practice for a creditor to:

· Pursue the debt under circumstances in which the debtor has heard nothing from acreditor during the relevant limitation period.

· Continue to press a debtorfor payment after he has stated that he will not be paying a debt because it isstatute barred.

In addition to the alleged debt being statute barred as per above, I have received no correspondence or had any knowledge of the alleged debts existence until your initial letter dated 29th August 2013.

I was not financially responsible for any household bills at the alleged supply address. Therefore, I am extremely concerned that my name has been added to a bill for the alleged debt without mypermission or my knowledge.

I note that there is a second name on the document that you have sent through to me, a Mr XXX, yet I am being pursued for the full alleged debt? I also find this highly concerning,especially as my name has been added without my knowledge or permission in thefirst instance.

Unless you can provide further written proof of myliability regarding this debt, and further evidence of payment or writtencontact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are not able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that:

"Continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred couldamount to harassment contrary to section40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".

Should you continue to harass me regarding this alleged debt without providing the further documentation required then a complaint willbe made to the Financial Services Ombudsman without further notice.

If I receive any communication from another debt collection agency,then it will be evident that you have sold this debt on with the knowledge thatit is statute barred. Should this occur then I will be forced to report your company to Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Services Ombudsman.

I would also request that you remove and delete all reference to me and the alleged debt from your files.

I await your written confirmation that no further contact will be made concerning the above account, and confirmation that this matter is now closed.

[Deleted User]

DentedTiara wrote: »

We have sent the template statute barred letter, but they have sent back a report showing the last payment was made on 11th October 2006.

That's still a few days short of 7 years.

[Deleted User]

yes, even if the last payment was on 11th October 2006, it's still well over the time limit to be statute barred. Send them the SB letter again and say you consider the matter closed, any further correspondence from them and they will be reported for harassment. You most certainly don't need to pay, don't let them bully you.

DentedTiara

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

That's still a few days short of 7 years.

I thought the time limit was 6 years not 7?

ValHaller

Far too long and wordy, It is statute barred and that is the end of it. So something simple - no, not that simple - along the lines of it is Statute Barred and if necessary we shall prove it to a court, otherwise the matter is closed. They have pretty much stuffed themselves with the date they have given for the last payment,

Besides which, I think they would be on a sticky wicket proving Joint and Several liability between a lodger and a live in landlord.

fatbelly

I agree.

The situation fits the 'hybrid' letter (post #5) from:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2606811

I do not acknowledge any debt to you or any other company or organisation that you claim to be representing.

Dear Sir/Madam

Reference number :

You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

I would point out that we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to <creditor>.

We are familiar with the ‘Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance’ which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

We would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

Furthermore, ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

We would further note that based on the information you have supplied, this account would also be statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 "an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued".

I would also point out that in their Debt Collection Guidance, the OFT regard the following unfair or improper business practice for a creditor to:
•pursue the debt under circumstances in which the debtor has heard nothing from a creditor during the relevant limitation period.
• continue to press a debtor for payment after he has stated that he will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred.
We would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above accounts unless you can provide evidence of both:

(1) proof of my liability regarding this debt.

and

(2) payment or written acknowledgement from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

We await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed.

Otherwise we will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully

Mrs A N Other

The important point is that on the information they have supplied, it's statute barred; you're not paying; there's nowhere for them to go with this.

[Deleted User]

DentedTiara wrote: »

I thought the time limit was 6 years not 7?

That's what I meant.

It's just short of 7 years, so will be comfortably SB.

DentedTiara

Thank you all - I figured they had shot themselves in the ar*e with the statement they sent but wasn't 100% sure.
The other half has been worrying they are going to turn up on the doorstep!

I shall send another SB letter and then if they send anymore letters ignore them and refer it to the FOS.

Thanks again!!

DentedTiara

Got the letter read to go - would it be worth me adding in the below bit to really drive home their c*ck up?

The last payment made by whoever was responsible for the alleged debt was made on 11th October 2006 via a Post Office Transcash payment, there has been no further written correspondence, acknowledgement or payment since this date.

Therefore under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5, the expiration date for the alleged debt was 11th October 2012.

Tixy

I wouldn't add it. After all your OH has no idea when or how the last payment was made aside from what they have told him - and I wouldn't believe what they say.

If you really want to add something then I would say 'According to your own records .......' or 'According to your letter of x date', but personally I'd just send the standard letter.

DentedTiara

Just a follow up, I sent the standard Statute Barred letter for a second time, and EOS have now sent through a copy of the bill and the statement behind it again.

The bill is dated 1st April 2007 - so considering the first my OH heard about this was 28th August 2013 it is most certainly statute barred.
EOS disagreed and have said it isn't statute barred and given me a phone number to arrange payment.

What makes this more amusing is that the bill they have sent as evidence has a different total value to what they are chasing for, and what is on the statement - so I now have three different values!

I have drafted a response, but was wondering if there is another template one I can use?

I have also complained to the OFT as frankly this is becoming quite annoying, especially as my OH and I are looking into buying a house and don't want this to affect whether we can get a mortgage.

Any further advice would be very much appreciated!