Ignore or Reply to Debt Collectors Letters

arthurx1234

I am at the appeal rejected stage of my PCN.
IAS rejected my appeal as i had anticipated.
I am now awaiting a letter from VCS asking for the dosh.
After that I am expecting the Debt Collectors letters.
Having read numerous posts I realise that I should NOT ignore a "letter before court action" (have complained to DVLA,Landowner,IPC,MP with VCS copied into letters so they know "I'm not going quietly")
But what about the numerous letters before this stage?
Ignore or Reply??

Arthur

Redx

already covered in post #4 of the newbies sticky thread

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64350592&postcount=4

and also covered in posts #12 and #13 in this thread too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5161978

please look for previous answers before posting as the answers have been posted hundreds of times already

thank you

arthurx1234

"If you have letters from any debt collector such as Debt Recovery Plus or Zenith or Roxburghe, and are on the face of it, too late to 'appeal', then (if in England/Wales) appeal anyway to the PPC! and as for the DC, either ignore them or robustly respond."

So its my choice,I knew that, just which tactic is most successful

Arthur

Redx

depends on what you define as "successful" !

in my experience of reading these forums , the letters arrive ad nauseum regardless of which way you play the game, but responding to them is like responding to spam email, they know they have a live one on the hook

so the letters dont stop either way , therefore in my opinion neither is "successful"

I know which one I would do, and it begins with I

fisherjim

Why go along with their warped view of their own self importance by responding to them, they just think they've hooked you in.
Ignore them and let them waste THEIR money chasing round in circles, it's very satisfying!;)

arabesque_101

The argument against robustly responding is:
a) why waste your time.
b) there is always a danger you may say the wrong thing (like name the driver).

The argument if favour of robustly responding is:
a) a (very) slight chance it might make them go away.
b) if they don't go away, it possibly creates a case for a counter claim should the matter proceed to court.

At the end of the day, you need to make your own decision on this.