DCA Phishing letters

Getting_there_slowly_73

I would ask for your advice again if I may.

One company I have heard nothing from at all since sending the "prove it" letters - I sent 2 in total, having heard nothing back at all am I obliged to inform them if I am moving in December?

Secondly I have had a response from the other company but all they have sent is a periodic statement for period ended 3/09/2014 it says :

Statement number 6
dated 27/10/2014
or period ended 30/09/2014
Opening Balance at start of statement period £1954.80
assigned to (their name)
date of assignment 21/02/2006

balance on account £1954.80 DEBITS £0.00 CREDITS £0.00

am I reading this correctly - is this now statute barred?

thanks for all your help

Getting_there_slowly_73

also am I able to request a CCA if for any reason they come back and this isn't SB

Getting_there_slowly_73

also my apologies on the covering letter it says please find attached your latest annual statement detailing all financial transactions from 01/10/2013-30/09/2014

rizla_king

A statement like that proves fcuk all. :rotfl:

If thats all they have then they are royally screwed.

No payments since at least 2006? So it would be statute barred.

So tell them to provide proper proof http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=57703407&postcount=3

Or to get lost as its statute barred.

Yes you can still CCA them if need be.

Getting_there_slowly_73

thanks rizla king so something like:

With reference to your letter dated 27/10/2014 and the statement of account attached

I would point out that 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 point out that in their Consumer Credit sourcebook,
the!Financial!Conduct!Authority!states the following rules:
"...a firm must not attempt to recover a statute barred debt in England, Wales or Northern Ireland if the lender or owner has not been in contact with the customer during the limitation period."!7.15.4
"A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred." 7.15.8
The last payment or acknowledgement of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time.! Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me/us to recover the alleged amount claimed.

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

....or should i complain?

rizla_king

If you know for certain its statute barred and yours then yes.

At the moment theyve just send so called proof that is nothing of the sort though?

I assume it proves nothing?

1st I would tell them to provide proper proof its yours as what they sent proves diddly squat.

Getting_there_slowly_73

ok that makes sense then.

So looking at the link you gave it seems they are mostly causes to complain - I have not received masses of letter or calls just this statement.

What further proof should I be asking for? Full summaries since assignment etc?

Sorry to ask what are probably poor questions

Getting_there_slowly_73

so is this what I should be sending? I'm not altogether sure or able to find what exactly I should received in response to a prove it letter


COMPLAINT

Dear

Without prejudice

Account No:

With reference to your letter dated 27/10/2014 and the attached statement of account (dated 01/102013-30/09/2014) which was sent in response to my request that you provide proof as to my liability for the debt in question.

I dispute that the statement sent provides sufficient proof to ascertain my liability for the debt in question.

As such please provide me with further proof including (but not limited to) nature of the debt, full name and address associated with the debt and a full statement of account since date of assignment (shown on Statement as 21/02/2006).

I would remind you that:-

• A firm must not pursue an individual whom the firm knows or believes might not be the borrower or hirer under a credit agreement or a consumer hire agreement.
• A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid.
• Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner.
• Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the borrower or hirer or as to the amount of the debt, it is for the firm (and not the customer) to establish, as the case may be, that the customer is the correct person in relation to the debt or that the amount is the correct amount owed under the agreement.
• A firm must provide a customer with information on the outcome of its investigations into a debt which the customer disputed on valid grounds.

Getting_there_slowly_73

I have spent a couple of hours searching online and am still not sure of what I am and am not able to ask for in terms of these guys proving the debt is mine.

Surely a statement for a year is not enough but I worry about sending the letter above and having put something incorrect in there

It feels like their entire purpose is to confuse the issue

rizla_king

Getting_there_slowly_73 wrote: »

It feels like their entire purpose is to confuse the issue

It is basically. They have obviously bought this without bothering to get any proper documentation at all. So their only choice to try to bluff and bamboozle you. Its what DCAs do. Letter looks OK to me. Make it a formal complain though saying you will take them to the FOS and report them to the FCA if they dont provide proper proof that would stand up in court.