Statute Barred Debt - Disputed Payments

MrW99

Hi,

I have a dispute with a debt recovery company.

I had an IVA which officially failed in March 2011.

I received communication from a debt firm in December 2016. I replied that I was not acknowledging or admitting liability for the debt and it was now statute barred. After a lot of delay asking me for more time to investigate, 10 months later they finally replied claiming that I had made payments, and therefore the debt was not statute barred. I had another debt with a credit card company which was on the IVA, and that was agreed to be statute barred, around November 2016.

According to the debt company there was a substantial 'redress' amount paid to the account last year, and a random small payment described on the statement as 'one off payment', which was around £6. I made neither of these payments. They also mention the IVA to support their claim, but to my mind, that's now irrelevant.

I can't think what the redress payment is, but the amount leads to think that it is a PPI refund. Since I never pursued this, if it is PPI, then it must surely be fraudulently claimed.

Also the statements they've produced are not from the creditor themselves, and instead look like Word produced and laser printed fakes. The account numbers don't match, and neither do some of the dates. It all looks a bit fabricated to make me drop the statute barred claim..

Is it up to me to prove I didn't make the payments? Surely it's difficult to prove a negative like this?

I'm just curious of my options going forward. Any advice gratefully received.

Thanks

MrW

Marktheshark

This is standard bluff.
Write back stating they have failed to provide proof of claim and you are closing the claim as it is statute barred.

MrW99

Forgot to mention that the supposed statements from the original creditor contain out of date information. Firstly, the contact details are no longer in service. Secondly, the small print says that they are regulated by the FSA. This organisation no longer exists. Surely this is negligence in providing false financial advice and details.

fatbelly

There's an argument that payments made under an IVA do not count as acknowledgement, so the account was probably statute barred before their invented payments.

I agree with Mark's attitude. If they start a claim, use us (and legalbeagles) to defend, but I doubt it'll come to that.