My rights regarding a High Court Enforcement regarding an unknown debt

knightstyle

IMO the best way to find answers to all these questions is to send a SAR to the insurers and the firm of solicitors.

MT1966

knightstyle said:

IMO the best way to find answers to all these questions is to send a SAR to the insurers and the firm of solicitors.

Sorry, what's a SAR ?

user1977

MT1966 said:

knightstyle said:

IMO the best way to find answers to all these questions is to send a SAR to the insurers and the firm of solicitors.

Sorry, what's a SAR ?

Subject access request.

Isn't the most likely reason for not receiving letters that they were being sent to the wrong address? I think you had said the solicitors had been told of a change of address, but had they acknowledged it?

I still don't understand why anybody thinks identity theft is involved.

MT1966

user1977 said:

MT1966 said:

knightstyle said:

IMO the best way to find answers to all these questions is to send a SAR to the insurers and the firm of solicitors.

Sorry, what's a SAR ?

Subject access request.

Isn't the most likely reason for not receiving letters that they were being sent to the wrong address? I think you had said the solicitors had been told of a change of address, but had they acknowledged it?

I still don't understand why anybody thinks identity theft is involved.

Daughter "A" informed them on the phone of "D"'s change of address, we have the copies of the bill and final demand with that address on it, so they were aware of the change. Just to reiterate, these copies were emailed after D requested ALL of the letters they claim to have sent but they only sent copies of the bill and final demand letter threatening court action, no evidence of the 8 letters that made up this bill.

I was informed by Action Fraud, I have just taken their word for it and it does make some sense under the circumstances. A s I've mentioned, due to the number of grammatical errors in it, it didn't look right so I contacted Action Fraud. Happy to discuss some or all of the errors contained if you want.

sevenhills

MT1966 said
MT1966 saidJust to reiterate, these copies were emailed after D requested ALL of the letters they claim to have sent but they only sent copies of the bill and final demand letter threatening court action, no evidence of the 8 letters that made up this bill.

Even if the postman put the letters in the bin instead of delivering them, she would known what was going on, because they would have sent an email too?

MT1966

Manxman_in_exile said:

@MT1966 -  are you 100% sure that neither of your daughters started legal proceedings by themselves against the third party involved in the accident?  That is in respect of injuries suffered by A herself and by her nephew?

MT1966 said:

...The insurers must have instructed the law firm to commence injury claims for both of them...

You see, that seems like rather a bold assumption to me.  If I were you I'd be asking telling daughter A to find out from her insurers exactly what happened.  In particular I'd want to know from them if they had instructed a firm to start legal proceedings, and if so, on behalf of whom?  Just daughter A ,or both daughter A and her nephew?  And again if they did, was the firm Carpenters?

Also - and I hate to ask this - but is it at all possible that your daughter A could have authorised Carpenters to act on her nephew's behalf without daughter D's knowledge?

I don't see how Action Fraud or anybody else could come to the conclusion that this is identity fraud.  After all, it does appear on the face of it to be something your daughter D was (or should have been?) aware of.  Assuming she'd been told about it.

(By "something" I'm referring to the claim made on behalf of your grandson)

Daughter A has contacted the insurers she was with at the time but she's getting nowhere with them and is still waiting for the requested info regarding the original instruction to the solicitors. Neither A nor D contacted any law firm at any point to instruct them to act.
Despite it all, A's insurance policy included legal cover, so at what point, and how, did D suddenly become liable for legal costs?

I'm just going by what I was told by Action Fraud. I had suspicions about the authenticity of some documents they emailed last week (allegedly they were original copies), I reported it to Action Fraud based on what I had read on the Law Society of Scotland website pertaining to 'How to spot a bogus solicitor'.
Happy to explain about the errors, if you're interested, might help you understand where I'm coming from better.

MT1966

sevenhills said:

MT1966 said
MT1966 saidJust to reiterate, these copies were emailed after D requested ALL of the letters they claim to have sent but they only sent copies of the bill and final demand letter threatening court action, no evidence of the 8 letters that made up this bill.

Even if the postman put the letters in the bin instead of delivering them, she would known what was going on, because they would have sent an email too?

That's the strange thing, she never received any emails from them, nor any phone calls (to the best of her recollection), although they charged her £90 for three calls, as well as 8 letters at £30 each. Also their hourly rate is £300 per hour an they charged her £330 for 1.1 hours for 'Attendance on Documents'.
If I showed you the documents they sent you'd be horrified, I'm not a lawyer but a ten year old could have written a more convincing letter.

Other people are asking where I got identity theft from and are doubting it, I contacted Action Fraud and that is what they reckon, what option do I have but to take them at their word ?

user1977

MT1966 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

@MT1966 -  are you 100% sure that neither of your daughters started legal proceedings by themselves against the third party involved in the accident?  That is in respect of injuries suffered by A herself and by her nephew?

MT1966 said:

...The insurers must have instructed the law firm to commence injury claims for both of them...

You see, that seems like rather a bold assumption to me.  If I were you I'd be asking telling daughter A to find out from her insurers exactly what happened.  In particular I'd want to know from them if they had instructed a firm to start legal proceedings, and if so, on behalf of whom?  Just daughter A ,or both daughter A and her nephew?  And again if they did, was the firm Carpenters?

Also - and I hate to ask this - but is it at all possible that your daughter A could have authorised Carpenters to act on her nephew's behalf without daughter D's knowledge?

I don't see how Action Fraud or anybody else could come to the conclusion that this is identity fraud.  After all, it does appear on the face of it to be something your daughter D was (or should have been?) aware of.  Assuming she'd been told about it.

(By "something" I'm referring to the claim made on behalf of your grandson)

Daughter A has contacted the insurers she was with at the time but she's getting nowhere with them and is still waiting for the requested info regarding the original instruction to the solicitors. Neither A nor D contacted any law firm at any point to instruct them to act.
Despite it all, A's insurance policy included legal cover, so at what point, and how, did D suddenly become liable for legal costs?

I'm just going by what I was told by Action Fraud. I had suspicions about the authenticity of some documents they emailed last week (allegedly they were original copies), I reported it to Action Fraud based on what I had read on the Law Society of Scotland website pertaining to 'How to spot a bogus solicitor'.

So the fraud you're talking about is that they're not a real firm of solicitors? (rather than somebody else masquerading as your daughter) Surely it's pretty easy to verify whether they're a real firm of solicitors? It doesn't sound likely that a bogus firm would be getting judgments.

Pollycat

user1977 said:

MT1966 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

@MT1966 -  are you 100% sure that neither of your daughters started legal proceedings by themselves against the third party involved in the accident?  That is in respect of injuries suffered by A herself and by her nephew?

MT1966 said:

...The insurers must have instructed the law firm to commence injury claims for both of them...

You see, that seems like rather a bold assumption to me.  If I were you I'd be asking telling daughter A to find out from her insurers exactly what happened.  In particular I'd want to know from them if they had instructed a firm to start legal proceedings, and if so, on behalf of whom?  Just daughter A ,or both daughter A and her nephew?  And again if they did, was the firm Carpenters?

Also - and I hate to ask this - but is it at all possible that your daughter A could have authorised Carpenters to act on her nephew's behalf without daughter D's knowledge?

I don't see how Action Fraud or anybody else could come to the conclusion that this is identity fraud.  After all, it does appear on the face of it to be something your daughter D was (or should have been?) aware of.  Assuming she'd been told about it.

(By "something" I'm referring to the claim made on behalf of your grandson)

Daughter A has contacted the insurers she was with at the time but she's getting nowhere with them and is still waiting for the requested info regarding the original instruction to the solicitors. Neither A nor D contacted any law firm at any point to instruct them to act.
Despite it all, A's insurance policy included legal cover, so at what point, and how, did D suddenly become liable for legal costs?

I'm just going by what I was told by Action Fraud. I had suspicions about the authenticity of some documents they emailed last week (allegedly they were original copies), I reported it to Action Fraud based on what I had read on the Law Society of Scotland website pertaining to 'How to spot a bogus solicitor'.

So the fraud you're talking about is that they're not a real firm of solicitors? (rather than somebody else masquerading as your daughter) Surely it's pretty easy to verify whether they're a real firm of solicitors? It doesn't sound likely that a bogus firm would be getting judgments.

This bit about identity fraud is very confusing.
If the OP means that the 'fraud' relates to the solicitors rather than someone taking over the daughter's identity, the firm of solicitors that they mention in this post seems to be a very well known company according to a later poster. Referred to as 'massive' with 1000 employees.

MT1966 said:

If you'd like to Google the law firm, they're called CAPENTERS GROUP, based on Merseyside. I would urge you to read some of the reviews left by people and let you make up your own mind.
 

MattMattMattUK

Reading through this whole thread I think the only conclusion I can reliably draw is that there are considerable holes in the story. I would suspect that you are not being told all the relevant information, possibly a combination of selective disclosure and your daughter deliberately choosing not to understand something. The claims of identity theft seem at best a diversion, the idea that just because joint liability was agreed between the insurers (very unusual in a case of being hit from behind) and that somehow randomly generating a large legal feels bill is just not probable.

You have mentioned mental health issues and I suspect that because of those you are getting a very selective story. As suggested by others a full SAR to both insurers and the legal firms is in order but that needs to come from the relevant parties (your daughters, the parents/legal guardian of the child, not you) and then working through building a true picture of what actually happened. You can then establish where the legal fees arose from, but from what you have said I would suspect either a dropped personal injury claim or the non-parent daughter starting a legal claim in the name of a child she could not legally start one in the name of.