> "...slc are aware of your current address?" Yes - hopefully no back doors here! And thank you for the info dx - I hadn't been able to find that letter instance (or approximation of it) so far. Didn't think to check all the other dirty debt avenues they've got their mits in. Good to know it's par for the course. Thanks for the forum - such a great resource. Will update in the future with any follow-ups of note. In the meantime, I wish you all a good weekend.

While I thank you for the time and info provided so far, is anyone willing to help me with a knowledgeable opinion on taking (or not) the next step? (see questions above, post #8). [NOTE: I fully realise it would be only opinion, and not 'legal' advice in any shape or form.] I appreciate this is effectively a phishing letter - but it is a step up from the normal variety. So is this a time to re-request proof of debt (via the original document(s) from early 1990s)? Or is this a time to 'hold the line' and not respond to it at all? Thanks in advance.

So, in this situation is it better to maintain a stance of not responding at all, or to re-state my non-acknowledgement of the alleged debt? Or does neither of those approaches have a bearing on their future action?

>> "the only downside to what you have done is to p'haps leave your credit file open to a default?" True indeed - but the default is kind of a non-issue to me (in the big scheme of things, anyway). I can put up with that. What I'm trying to ascertain is whether this is purely another 'put the frighteners on' letter, or whether it is indeed a true precursor to court action? Is this anywhere close to constituting an actual 'letter before action'? Or does that have to come from the actual claimant (or via its legal team), rather than its appointed collection-corp thug? In my shoes, dx100uk, would you fire off a letter re-stating that the debt is not acknowledged, or wait to see if there is any actual bite behind the bark? (And thanks again to you both for taking the time to respond.)

Thanks for responding already - much appreciated! A 'reconstituted' version of the letter has now been uploaded/attached ScrapquestHeapChallenge_14DayCourtThreatDoc.pdf

letter received from good old carpquest, those selfless souls (I think an 'r' needs adding to the start of that word for them) who are toiling thanklessly away on behalf of their [heavily connected] client, Erudio [arrows], in relation to a claim for student loans. Following a number of 'you owe this amount, please contact us' style letters, this latest letter seems more decisive regarding potential court proceedings by Erudio. Which is why I need a little help: ====> NOTE: Is it possible to add the original letter text here for only admin to see? ====> Is this the 'next level' of scare tactics? Or is it close enough to a 'letter before action' to start making definite court defence preparations right now? Because rather than using words like 'may' or 'might', the letter states: "If we do not receive contact from you...our client will be instructing a solicitor to commence court proceedings..." "...should no contact be forthcoming...your account will be passed to our clients' solicitors..." As Erudio has already stated that this account is dealt with by capquest, then are those words as good as coming from Erudio itself? Of potential note though is that the requested action stated in the letter is based upon 'contact' and to 'engage' with them - not in 'making payment' to them. Just as background to this particular situation: I didn't continue with deferment once the government sold on the loans to these Erudio. Instead I refused to acknowledge the loan (in writing) along with a CCA request. The (eventual) paperwork I received merely showed that any original documentation was poorly micro-fiched, incomplete, and partly illegible. The rest was, of course, 'reconstituted' for the purposes of the CCA. Following that I have not responded in any shape or form, other than to receive their letters of default, phishing letters, and 'passed on to caquest' notices. I'm not in panic mode or anything, as I decided to see things through this way - whatever the outcome - when refusing to acknowledge Erudio's dubious acquisition of loans in the first place. But any advice on what options/steps to take next in this situation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time (and apologies for anything not made clear enough). PS: What's the best way to add content from the letter itself (if required) for limited viewing?