Shoosmiths are simply employed to get the debt paid using what ever method....beit with their DCA hat on or Solicitor litigator hat...which ever methods frightens you the most and is most effective.

It is simply impossible to guess whether they are bluffing or not and of course whether the debt is worthwhile litigating on...which would be determined by its value/age/and documents available.

There are no simple answers or guess to what they may do...we simply advise what tactics we know work to deter the worst scenario and for you to show them if they do litigate it wont be a walk in the park...otherwise known as a default judgment should they decide to issue a claim.

As for how and who its decided on whether to issue a claim...the above is all taken into consideration...

Andy

i had to look up the old thread to remember what it was, and yes, i did want a simple answer.

the answer was no, that was not a legal requirement. and it was like pulling teeth to get that answer lol

I honestly don't understand why people can't just answer the question asked, not just on here, but in all walks of life.

You wanted a straight answer.

You should know what this debt is, as there would have been previous letters and if you searched your credit record history, you will find the details.

If the debt comes under Consumer Credit act, you can send a CCA request if you wanted to or wait to see what happens. It might be better to wait to see if a court claim is issued. If you receive a court claim, send the CCA request and if they don't supply it, then use it against them in defence. Sending the CCA before a claim is made can backfire, if they get the CCA back from original creditors and the debt is enforceable, then you have stitched yourself up. Remember once a court claim is issued, the clock is ticking for claimant to get hold of documents they should have had before issuing any claim and if they muck up, then it makes it difficult to ever win a claim for this debt.

Thank you Mr Womble. I assume that's why the name, and you're not actually a Bulgarian uncle.

despite earlier claims made, that was straight and simple!

Shoosmiths are solicitors working for Capquest.

Capquest arent the original creditor and may have no interest in this matter.

If that is the case then if they instruct shoosmiths to sue you they will lose for not having LOCUS STANDI, ie a right to use the court. Only the actual debtor can do that and so far they havent been identified.

Now Shoosmiths have to follow certain protocols or any claim they issue may get thrown out for breach of procedure and they would be introuble with the SRA for doing this on purpose.

So they are not that stupid it is a certain bet that they are not going to follow up on their threat because they cant but telling lies in a letter isnt against the law so they do that knowing there is nothing for them to lose by doing so.

even if you dont fall for it they are no worse off and they do it because they hope that you are ignorant enough to actually pick up the phone and agree to apy them somehting to make thise threat of hell and damnation go away,even if they have actually got the wrong person.

They have been identified.

both my letter, and credit file, says it is capquest.

i assume that means they have bought the debt.

that part was never in question.

what is in question is what it was originally, before capquest bought it.

You assume.

The original creditor was obliged to tell you if they sold the debt on.

You either have failed to pay attention to the letter of assignment or they dont actually own the debt.

Your credit file will tell you who that was unless the debt is more than 6 years old and is no longer showing who the OC was and in that case it may well be SB