Dear All,

I've today received a Statutory Demand from CapQuest in concern to an old debt with Halifax. I requested a copy of the CCA back in 2009. when they finally sent a copy it was missing all the per-described terms. The debt has been in dispute since around 2005 and was sold to Capquest in 2006 (although on the SD they actually mistakenly have dated the assignment to 2008).

I would like to apply to have the demand set aside and I have no idea where to start, I would really appreciate any help or advice anyone may be able to offer.

Kind Regards

NQ

Hi, Capquest up to their old tricks again I see - when did you last make a payment towards this?

was the sd sent by post or by personal service

if by post then that now is unlawful since april this year and is a perfect defence

What figure are they quoting?

Have you checked your CRA files to be

clear on default date and last payment?

Hi, Capquest up to their old tricks again I see - when did you last make a payment towards this?

The last payment was made in 2006 by mistake, I used a debt management service to try and sort out all my debts in 2006 which have all now been paid off. This account was in despite even with the OC so when payplan made the first payment I told them to remove this one from the list as I genuinely didnt feel I owed a penny. Had they not done that it would be statue barred already.

Kind Regards

NQ

Post removed

It was sent by post

Kind Regards

NQ

This seems to me to be a relatively small

debt to issuing a stat demand on.

Have you had previous contact from

Capquest or any other DCA since that

last payment?

I've had allot of previous contact with CapQuest since 2006. They used to harrass me with threatening phone calls back in 2006 before I changed numbers in order to put a stop to ten calling up to 6 times a day. Since then they have bombarded me with pretty much every variation of threatening letter. I asked got proof of the debt by means of a copy of the CCA which was missing all the pre-described terms. Letters went back and forth for months until around July 2010 and then the letters suddenly stopped got almost a year until recently when they wrote threatening me with a SD, I wrote back to maintain my dispute of the debt and then got the SD through the post today (not signed for or anything). Shouldn't the SD be stamped by the court or something as it's not

Kind Regards

NQ

check back later tonight and ill have the recent legislation to see off crappyquest

Thank you postggj, I really appreciate the help

Kind Regards

NQ

What debt is this card, loan, current account overdraft?

In recent years debt collection agencies have increasingly used Statutory Demands as a tool of debt collection. When issuing a Statutory Demands most of them have no intention of actually issuing a petition for bankruptcy - it is just used to frighten people into paying debts.

Issuing Statutory Demands must have been effective in bringing in money, as more and more companies have jumped on the bandwagon. There are accounts of people being so frightened when receiving these that they have paid them before priority calls on their money like rent, council tax and utilities.

Well, due to the abuse of the system, the government have CHANGED THE RULES as from 6 April 2011

The full link can be found here, but the important bit companies now have to abide by is:

If a statutory demand has not been served personally, you will have to obtain permission from the court to issue the petition. To do so you need to complete a witness statement confirming compliance with Insolvency Practice Direction 11. This statement must be factually accurate and describe fully how the statutory demand was served and any enquiries that were carried out before, or at the time of service.

If creditors now send any debtor a Statutory Demand merely by post, then service is defective (unless the debtor is being evasive) and they cannot go on to actually issue a petition for bankruptcy.

Top marks for this move by the powers that be. It will save hundreds of people a great deal of stress (provided they know about the change).

take note mr darry davies (ghost)

no more statutory demands

lol, dunno why the people on this forum are so hung up on Davies. When I get a special offer from my telecomes company I don't try and phone up the 'Director of Marketing' to take up the offer.

might it be that he is a figgmant of crappyquests imaginaltion

or can you confirm he is real in the flesh

as i remember, he was ordered to attend court and crappyquest withdew the action and paid full costs

got something to hide have we??

More than a little it seems is hidden in the Crapquest murky closet:madgrin:

He appears to he 'head of legal services' I would imagine all legal paperwork is issued his name because of that and perhaps he is the company solicitor

Its probably not worth his hassle to turn up in court to defend cases.

Generic letters are often sent with names of top people on them - nothing unique.

he is not a solicitor

ive checked with the sra

he was ordered to attend by court directions

In recent years debt collection agencies have increasingly used Statutory Demands as a tool of debt collection. When issuing a Statutory Demands most of them have no intention of actually issuing a petition for bankruptcy - it is just used to frighten people into paying debts.

 

Issuing Statutory Demands must have been effective in bringing in money, as more and more companies have jumped on the bandwagon. There are accounts of people being so frightened when receiving these that they have paid them before priority calls on their money like rent, council tax and utilities.

 

Well, due to the abuse of the system, the government have CHANGED THE RULES as from 6 April 2011

 

The full link can be found here, but the important bit companies now have to abide by is:

 

If a statutory demand has not been served personally, you will have to obtain permission from the court to issue the petition. To do so you need to complete a witness statement confirming compliance with Insolvency Practice Direction 11. This statement must be factually accurate and describe fully how the statutory demand was served and any enquiries that were carried out before, or at the time of service.

 

If creditors now send any debtor a Statutory Demand merely by post, then service is defective (unless the debtor is being evasive) and they cannot go on to actually issue a petition for bankruptcy.

 

Top marks for this move by the powers that be. It will save hundreds of people a great deal of stress (provided they know about the change).

 

 

Thanks for explaining that postggj, I was wondering why several of us have had these witness statements presented before we attend court although it does seem unfair that we cannot reply with our own witness statement other than the affadavit.

In recent years debt collection agencies have increasingly used Statutory Demands as a tool of debt collection. When issuing a Statutory Demands most of them have no intention of actually issuing a petition for bankruptcy - it is just used to frighten people into paying debts.

 

Issuing Statutory Demands must have been effective in bringing in money, as more and more companies have jumped on the bandwagon. There are accounts of people being so frightened when receiving these that they have paid them before priority calls on their money like rent, council tax and utilities.

 

Well, due to the abuse of the system, the government have CHANGED THE RULES as from 6 April 2011

 

The full link can be found here, but the important bit companies now have to abide by is:

 

If a statutory demand has not been served personally, you will have to obtain permission from the court to issue the petition. To do so you need to complete a witness statement confirming compliance with Insolvency Practice Direction 11. This statement must be factually accurate and describe fully how the statutory demand was served and any enquiries that were carried out before, or at the time of service.

 

If creditors now send any debtor a Statutory Demand merely by post, then service is defective (unless the debtor is being evasive) and they cannot go on to actually issue a petition for bankruptcy.

 

Top marks for this move by the powers that be. It will save hundreds of people a great deal of stress (provided they know about the change).

 

 

Dear postggj,

Thank you for the information. What would be my first step to get this set aside for the reasons detailed above, I've never had any dealings with the courts before, so I'm absolutely clueless as to where I need to go and I need to so or what forms if any I should be use.

Kind Regards

NQ

I've found the forms 6.4 and 6.5 that apparently I'm supposed to apply to have the SD set aside, is this correct, how do I fill these out, would really appreciate some help as this situtation is really stressing me out

Thank You

NQ

Hi again, have a look at 42 Man's posts in the following thread on how to complete the forms and amend to suit your situation, plus you can do a search for Capquest in the search box to see other relevant threads, main thing is chill out and don't panic:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?309388-capquest-statutory-demand

If it's any consolation NQ I had an almost identical letter this morning regarding a disputed and now also SB Abbey account that has already been struck out by the courts once - they're obviously on a roll....

Hi again, have a look at 42 Man's posts in the following thread on how to complete the forms and amend to suit your situation, plus you can do a search for Capquest in the search box to see other relevant threads, main thing is chill out and don't panic:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?309388-capquest-statutory-demand

Thank you for your reply miss muppet.

Just had a read through the link you sent and have managed to fill in 6.4 (I think). I'm worried about how to correctly fill in 6.5 though as a lot of what was written in the link version was in terms of a Statue Barred debt rather than my case which is in concern to a CCA missing all pre-described terms. It would have been statue barred by now had PayPlan not made 1 payment by mistake in 2006 when I was trying to sort out all my debts. I've started it with

'2. That I do not admit the debt due to a substantial dispute to which the claimant has failed to supply me with what I believe to be an enforcable credit agreement, the copy providied missing the pre-described terms.'

Does that sound acceptable?

Kind Regards

NQ