Aktiv Kapital: The Story Continues

Vagabond_UK

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=110900


So, after the goings on detailed in the above thread I thought i'd heard the last of AK. Seems I was wrong.

After CCA'ing their collector Wescot last year for a debt alleged back in the '90 (Statute barred) to which the account was returned to AK and subsequently no CCA was produced, I've received a letter from AK today as detailed:

We refer to your recent communication in respect of the above account

Your reference to the Statue of Limitations is not relevant. We do of course fully understand Statute but debtors and their advisors very often misinterpret it. We have never advised that we will use litigation as a means to collect what is due, hence it is repeated that reference to the Act is not relevant.

There is no legislation that precludes a creditor from legitimatelly requesting payment of a debt, which remailns outstanding, and due. Indeed we could argue that any debtor who recognises that such a debt exists, has a moral obligation to address his responsibility. A bank or finance house has provided a credit facility; consequently it is up to that customer to honour his obligations.

The original creditor has confirmed that there is an outstanding balance, currently amounting to £xamount. If you believe the account has been fully repaid, would you please provide evidence of such repayment, perhaps by way of a receipt or a paid in full letter. The original creditor has no record of the account being repaid.

If it is the case that you have simply overlooked this account because of its age, we are prepared to be constructive and apply a significant discount rather than consulting with our solicitors about potential further action. Therefore entirely without prejudice, we would be prepared to accept 50% if £xamount as full and final settlement of the account. We need to receive payment of the discounted balance within 28 days.

We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible, and please telephone if you need to discuss repayment spread over a period of time.

Yours sincerely,
Aktiv Kapital (UK) Ltd

Advice please? I think they're fishing and are hoping i'll bite. :mad:

fermi

Vagabond_UK wrote: »

Advice please? I think they're fishing and are hoping i'll bite. :mad:

They are.:rolleyes:

Your reference to the Statue of Limitations is not relevant. We do of course fully understand Statute but debtors and their advisors very often misinterpret it. We have never advised that we will use litigation as a means to collect what is due, hence it is repeated that reference to the Act is not relevant.

100% relevant since you have stated you will not be paying as the debt is statute barred.

There is no legislation that precludes a creditor from legitimatelly requesting payment of a debt, which remailns outstanding, and due. Indeed we could argue that any debtor who recognises that such a debt exists, has a moral obligation to address his responsibility. A bank or finance house has provided a credit facility; consequently it is up to that customer to honour his obligations.

Legislation no (except it may be harassment if they continue). Guidance from the OFT says they shouldn't press for payment though. They clearly state:

From: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

Statute barred debt

2.13 This guidance applies to the pursuit of debt regardless of its age. We will be carrying out further work on this aspect of debt recovery including analysis of relevant legislation and practice throughout the UK.

2.14 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:

a. we accept legally the debt exists
b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be unfair as follows:
• it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period
• if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt
• it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, for example, falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal provisions, and
• continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Failure to adhere to these guidelines may also be contributory grounds for the OFT revoking their Consumer Credit Licence if they have enough complaints.

If it is the case that you have simply overlooked this account because of its age, we are prepared to be constructive and apply a significant discount rather than consulting with our solicitors about potential further action.

Err... NO, as they know it is legally unrecoverable.:mad:

In conclusion, just ignore them.

If they continue to write/phone report them to the OFT and trading standards.

RAS

Vagabond

Going to disagree with fermi on one point only.

have you actually told them to bog off - not clear from you post. if not please do so asap.

If you have, then complain now to the trading Standard nearest their regsitered office and the OFT, with reference to the part of the oFT Guideance they are ignoring.

fermi

Fair enough RAS.

I was assuming this was the normal first response to the first SB letter; but yes, if they have been told before this to get lost then start raising complaints now.

shane5408

Hi Vagabond,

I would keep a close eye on your credit file with the 3 CRA's. In the past I've known Aktiv to serve and continually update default noticies/adverse credit data purporting that though the debt is unenforcable the debt remains existant and stipulates a valid contract between debtor and creditor allowing them to process your data in relation to the managing of that debt by virtue of Section 2(A) of Schedule 2 of the Data protection act.

They are completely overlooking the 1st principle ofcourse, but if they are not challenged they'll compleltely trash your credit rating.

Also, if they have already served a default notice there are ways to get it removed, especially if there were any unlawful penalty charges made up in the balance.

kind regards,
Shane

Donedoingdebt

Agree with shane5408, AK put a default on my file some 3 / 4 years into my DMP when I had missed no payments at all. I did get it removed straight away but it's another pain you can do without.