Need advice urgently on a possible Statute Barred debt.

sithemadmonkey

rizla_king wrote: »

Why wait 30 days? They need to know as soon as possible that you are not buying their bullsh-t.

Because if it's strung out until December then it will be SB anyway - no point rushing to send the letter just in case there was a payment made (by a well-meaning relative, for instance) and the DCA manage to squeak in with a CCJ on the 18th December or something. They're giving OP 30 days to respond, so might as well wait at least 25 as they won't be taking any action in the meantime.

phil0sophy

sithemadmonkey wrote: »

Because if it's strung out until December then it will be SB anyway - no point rushing to send the letter just in case there was a payment made (by a well-meaning relative, for instance) and the DCA manage to squeak in with a CCJ on the 18th December or something. They're giving OP 30 days to respond, so might as well wait at least 25 as they won't be taking any action in the meantime.

Yup, that is my concern (about a relative paying it) however I would have never given permission for that so surely they would be in the wrong taking it anyway?

How do you suggest I approach the next letter then? My last one basically demanded proof of me even oweing the debt from the original lender (HSBC) which they STILL haven't provided me with and proof of payments (which was nothing more than a few boxes on a page with no card numbers etc)

With this being their final response will that mean after this 30 day period they can issue a ccj even if I send them anothe letter? Also they are requesting a breakdown of my finances, why would I even give them that if I don't think I owe the debt?

At what point should I contact the fos about this? Really stuck as what to do next to be honest, I followed the letter #8 from the limitations thread with my last correspondence with them and have no idea what the next best step is,

National_Debtline

I have dealt with an awful lot of people over the years who have been told by a DCA that there has been a one-off payment of some nominal amount that conveniently appears to scupper that person's "statute barred" argument.

The amount quoted is usually so small as for the person to assume they could indeed have made it and subsequently forgotten all about it.

I leave it to OP's better judgment to decide how likely he is to have made an isolated one-off payment six days before Christmas on a credit card he did not possess at that time. Any payment by a third party, such as a relative, would be irrelevant for the purposes of restarting the clock, not to mention highly implausible.

Dennis
@natdebtline

rizla_king

National_Debtline wrote: »

I have dealt with an awful lot of people over the years who have been told by a DCA that there has been a one-off payment of some nominal amount that conveniently appears to scupper that person's "statute barred" argument.

The amount quoted is usually so small as for the person to assume they could indeed have made it and subsequently forgotten all about it.

That is a favorite tactic of [STRIKE]Liars[/STRIKE] err.... [STRIKE]Lowlifes[/STRIKE] err.... Lowells.

[STRIKE]Robbers Way[/STRIKE] err... Robinson Way.

and [STRIKE]Fraud-ricons[/STRIKE] err.... Fredricksons

phil0sophy

National_Debtline wrote: »

I have dealt with an awful lot of people over the years who have been told by a DCA that there has been a one-off payment of some nominal amount that conveniently appears to scupper that person's "statute barred" argument.

The amount quoted is usually so small as for the person to assume they could indeed have made it and subsequently forgotten all about it.

I leave it to OP's better judgment to decide how likely he is to have made an isolated one-off payment six days before Christmas on a credit card he did not possess at that time. Any payment by a third party, such as a relative, would be irrelevant for the purposes of restarting the clock, not to mention highly implausible.

Dennis
@natdebtline

Agree with everything you have said, also, this "debt" has appeared out of thin air it seems and every letter I have sent about this debt being statute barred I have included a question asking them to provide proof that I owe this to the original lender (HSBC) which they have failed to answer every single time.

What would you recommended for my next step? Should I again request they provide proof from the original lender that I even owe this? Also should I state that they need to provide me with the name of the person who paid this and the credit card information that the payment was made from?

Also with it being there "final response" does that mean they will issue a ccj after these 30 days even if I do send them another letter?

rizla_king

If this happens to be Lowells they will often take a chance and launch a court claim, hoping the get a judge who is liable to believe their rubbish statements. Sadly there are more than a few who will.

phil0sophy

rizla_king wrote: »

If this happens to be Lowells they will often take a chance and launch a court claim, hoping the get a judge who is liable to believe their rubbish statements. Sadly there are more than a few who will.

It's not Lowell's fortunately it's a company called "Rockwell
Debt collection agency"

rizla_king

Final response is more to do with the FOS issue. FOS want to see they have at least issued one.

I would get on with the FOS complaint ASAP.

FCA rules say that: http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/CONC/7/15

Rule CONC 7.15.10

Complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service and initiating legal proceedings

A lender must not initiate legal proceedings in relation to a regulated credit agreement where the lender is aware that the customer has submitted a valid complaint or what appears to the firm may be a valid complaint relating to the agreement in question that is being considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service.

rizla_king

Rules in 7.5 also

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/CONC/7/5

phil0sophy

rizla_king wrote: »

Rules in 7.5 also

Will be getting the FOS involved impact the debt being statute barred on the 19th of December though? If I start legal proceedings will that mean I won't be able to claim it statute barred?