Chased for a debt that previous owners settled: updated post 35

Jhoney_2

Fact - Vendor paid SC albeit later than due.
Fact - a statement was provided to Vendor solicitor asking for x amount to be paid from the proceeds of the sale
Fact - Amount paid was disbursed by solicitor
Fact - Silvercar had no sight of the paperwork during puchasing transaction
Fact - DC instructed by MC in October, some considerable time after SC's purchase
Fact - their notifications process failed as incorrect address demonstrably wrong (an SC has a copy)

There is no 'reasonable' about the associated DC charge.

I suspect the MC will just write this off as soon as they stop blushing/have realised this shake down is not going to happen, but as for Court it should get thrown out as a joke.

DandelionPatrol

Jhoney wrote: »

There is no 'reasonable' about the associated DC charge.

No one is saying that in this case any charge would be reasonable.

I was disputing your point that a debt collection charge is not effectively secured. It is, but it has to be reasonable.

Guest101

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

No one is saying that in this case any charge would be reasonable.

I was disputing your point that a debt collection charge is not effectively secured. It is, but it has to be reasonable.

I'm not convinced. Even a debt associated with a property still has a named respondent.

Jhoney_2

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

No one is saying that in this case any charge would be reasonable.

I was disputing your point that a debt collection charge is not effectively secured. It is, but it has to be reasonable.

And I think that if the debt for collection was for the Service Charge, from what Angie B has confirmed it could well be - subject to the provisions of the Lease and proper protocol being followed by MC to deal with it - but not in this instance or for these charges.

The SC is paid, the messed up. They get Nada from SilverCar and retrain their staff.

I do not mean to sidetrack the thread so lets agree to differ.

DandelionPatrol

Jhoney wrote: »

And I think that if the debt for collection was for the Service Charge, from what Angie B has confirmed it could well be - subject to the provisions of the Lease and proper protocol being followed by MC to deal with it - but not in this instance or for these charges.

The SC is paid, the messed up. They get Nada from SilverCar and retrain their staff.

I do not mean to sidetrack the thread so lets agree to differ.

For such charges, but not in this instance.

silvercar

Jhoney wrote: »

Fact - Vendor paid SC albeit later than due.
Fact - a statement was provided to Vendor solicitor asking for x amount to be paid from the proceeds of the sale
Fact - Amount paid was disbursed by solicitor
Fact - Silvercar had no sight of the paperwork during puchasing transaction
Fact - DC instructed by MC in October, some considerable time after SC's purchase
Fact - their notifications process failed as incorrect address demonstrably wrong (an SC has a copy)The incorrect address was to the application of the payment, not of posting notices to pay.

There is no 'reasonable' about the associated DC charge.

I suspect the MC will just write this off as soon as they stop blushing/have realised this shake down is not going to happen, but as for Court it should get thrown out as a joke.

let's hope so!

Jhoney_2

silvercar wrote: »

let's hope so!

Apologies Silvercar, I meant in relation to the statement that had been sent to at least one of the solicitors, showing the address for payment from vendor on completion - which nobody realised was inaccurate!

silvercar

Final update:

I have had no correspondence from them since October when I faxed proof of the payment being sent to them with a faxed letter explaining that they had credited it to the wrong account.
At the same time my solicitor contacted the debt collectors to tell them that the debt wasn't due as the payment had been credited to the wrong account.

Statement of account arrived today to include demand for 6 months ground rent. The arrears have been removed from the account. All the debt collecting fees and the MA's fees in relation to this are shown as debits and then yesterday have been re-credited.

Thank you for all your input.

Jhoney_2

silvercar wrote: »

Final update:

I have had no correspondence from them since October when I faxed proof of the payment being sent to them with a faxed letter explaining that they had credited it to the wrong account.
At the same time my solicitor contacted the debt collectors to tell them that the debt wasn't due as the payment had been credited to the wrong account.

Statement of account arrived today to include demand for 6 months ground rent. The arrears have been removed from the account. All the debt collecting fees and the MA's fees in relation to this are shown as debits and then yesterday have been re-credited.

Thank you for all your input.

Fantastic news SC - and as it should have been in the first place. Sorry you had to go through all the trouble to have it taken care of appropriately.