Catching up with credit file problems

user128346

Hi all,
I am hoping you will be able to shed some light on the information below, which is showing on my partner's credit file. It has never been checked up until now, so we would like to resolve some/all of this, with as little hassle as possible.
Firstly she tried to setup a free account with Credit Karma the other day to view her file (I've used this site for a while now and find it to be comprehensive enough) but the account setup was unsuccessful due to the time we've been at our current rented property (three months) - She setup an account with Totally Money & it's come up with the following info:
(Name - Type - Date - Amount)
Quickquid - Loan - Default since 08/17 - £300
Arrow Global - Current Account - Default since 10/17 - £111
Lowell - Other Accounts - Default since 11/17 - £235
Lowell - Telecommunications - Default since 12/17 - £355
There is also a judgment showing (CCJ) for the amount of £355, with a ruling made in 09/19 - but we could not view an actual outcome on that website & also after using TrustOnline to generate a report for her, it shows the CCJ being linked to Northampton County Court Business Centre.
This week she has received a letter from a "wonderful" company called CapQuest (Which I have read up on and seen nothing but bad reviews about them) looking to collect an amount of £111 for "TSB Bank" (to which we could probably assume is Lloyds/TSB or whatever they are called these days)

With the information above I have a few questions:
As far as we are aware, Quickquid have not chased for re-payment, but didn't they go into administration in the back end of last year? An obvious assumption would be to call them up, but they will no doubt say "you have to pay it" - which I'm not saying is wrong, it's fair for the debt to be paid. But is this the best approach with QuickQuid?
Do we know if Arrow Global/CapQuest are linked in any way?
Should we ignore the CapQuest letter completely?
Having very little information about the CCJ is frustrating, but we can only assume with it linking up to the Lowell amount of £355 that it is that. But as far as we are both aware, no payment has been made for this at all or any documentation received. Can we call Northampton County Court Business Centre to send out further information to us as to what actually happened or is this not possible, now that it looks like a ruling has been made? (Even though we don't know what the ruling was)
If you were in the same situation, where would you even start?

Any advice here is greatly appreciated, we are both not very clued up when it comes to these things, but hope to learn a few lessons and be more savvy with this stuff. I have aimed not to include too much personal information in this post (other than a few numbers I may have amended ever so slightly).
Thanks

D3xt3r5L4b

If she owes the debts she needs to pay them. 

What dates are the judgements/defaults?

user128346

D3xt3r5L4b said:

If she owes the debts she needs to pay them. 

What dates are the judgements/defaults?

That’s a fair point.
The three default dates you can see are all the same date for three months in a row (for example, 15/10/17, 15/11/17, 15/12/17 - which would make me believe they are linked even though there’s some different names.
In terms of the CCJ all we can see is the ruling date which was in 09/19 - but we can’t see any information about the CCJ other than what I posted above

[Deleted User]

user128346 said:

This week she has received a letter from a "wonderful" company called CapQuest (Which I have read up on and seen nothing but bad reviews about them) 

I wouldn't go as far as to call them wonderful, but I would expect most debt collectors don't get 5 star reviews from those who owe them money!

D3xt3r5L4b

So defaults will drop off 6 years from the date they were first applied - of course if they remain unpaid then they can go for a CCJ against them. 

user128346

D3xt3r5L4b said:

So defaults will drop off 6 years from the date they were first applied - of course if they remain unpaid then they can go for a CCJ against them. 

I thought it was CCJ’s that go off after 6 years? If we clear the defaults then these will stay for 6 years too?

user128346

Deleted_User said:

user128346 said:

This week she has received a letter from a "wonderful" company called CapQuest (Which I have read up on and seen nothing but bad reviews about them) 

I wouldn't go as far as to call them wonderful, but I would expect most debt collectors don't get 5 star reviews from those who owe them money!

I’ve read a few articles saying during lockdown a lot of people have received letters from them & to not pay. I wondered if anyone in here had history with them also

D3xt3r5L4b

user128346 said:

D3xt3r5L4b said:

So defaults will drop off 6 years from the date they were first applied - of course if they remain unpaid then they can go for a CCJ against them. 

I thought it was CCJ’s that go off after 6 years? If we clear the defaults then these will stay for 6 years too?

Both defaults and CCJ's drop off after 6 years.
The defaults will still drop off 6 years from the default date whether they're paid or not.

D3xt3r5L4b

user128346 said:

Deleted_User said:

user128346 said:

This week she has received a letter from a "wonderful" company called CapQuest (Which I have read up on and seen nothing but bad reviews about them) 

I wouldn't go as far as to call them wonderful, but I would expect most debt collectors don't get 5 star reviews from those who owe them money!

I’ve read a few articles saying during lockdown a lot of people have received letters from them & to not pay. I wondered if anyone in here had history with them also

They're a debt collection agency - do you expect to read glowing reviews about them online?

Dar1976

Lowell have their own online portal - both for active accounts, and their sister company Lowell Solicitors - chances are this is who is dealing with the CCJ case.   

user128346

Dar1976 said:

Lowell have their own online portal - both for active accounts, and their sister company Lowell Solicitors - chances are this is who is dealing with the CCJ case.   

Thanks - I’ll look into that