They have not provided ANY proof of the alleged payments other than refferring to so called internal notes. They need to prove how payments were made, the dates and amounts paid and most of all that they were actually made by YOU or someone acting on your authority. Without them supplying such proof then you are unable to prove you could not have possibly made such payments. Clownells quoted dates to me when I was not even in the country. They are talking bollocks about not having to retain documents as both Inland revenue and Money Laundering legislation requires all documentaion is kept for at least 7 years AFTER an account is closed

This is too funny not to pass on...enjoy AN ACTUAL CRAIG'S LIST AD AN ACTUAL CRAIG'S LIST PERSONALS AD

The Government has refused proper health care to many elderly citizens due to their advancing years. It is a worrying problem for many but help is at hand. Join the new free care plan today. If you are 65 years or older, you can apply. All new members will receive a gun and four bullets. You are allowed to shoot one MP (two if you live in England ), one MSP, one councillor and just to be sure of a long sentence, someone you really don't like and think the world could do without. As part of the plan, you will leave enough evidence to make sure you are caught and in due course will be sent to prison. There you will get a safe central heated environment, three meals a day, lots of company, free TV and an assortment of games plus - most importantly - all the health care you need! New teeth needed? No problem. New glasses? They'll be provided. New hip, knees, kidney, lung, heart?* They're all covered too. And who will pay for all of this? The same government that told you they cannot afford your current health care. And as an added bonus, because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay income tax anymore. Britain. A GREAT country or what? *Restrictions may apply. If you get terminal prostate cancer, you may be released and flown to a far off, sunny country, where you can live a bit longer with your friends and family. This is known as the Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi clause.

If they have handed the document over they are 1. Very confident of its authenticity 2. so bloody arrogant that they dont care

Send them this Dear Cretins Thank you for your recent anonymous printout. I require documentary PROOF that a written contact existed between me and your client. yours etc

What Palamino says is 100%. You cannot apply to have this SD set aside as its not in your name. Just sit tight and enjoy their increasingly desperate letters sent to Mr Acacia Avenue. I really would love to see them enforcing a bankruptcy judgement against a street. If the SD was just posted to you by standard post its a good indicator of it just being a scare tactic to get you to phone their threat monkeys

Send them this The burden of proof that the debt is NOT Statute Barred rests with them. You do not have to prove it is Statute Barred

Splosher Quit worrying. The previous SD was 18 months ago. It was not even legally served so it was a scary tactic which failed miserably. Its now well and truly out of the equation so forget about it. If they are foolish enough to go down the same road then it will be an easy matter to get it set aside and claim costs against them. Have you told them the alleged debt is Statute Barred

Splosher They only have six months to petition for bankruptcy after a Stat Demand is PROPERLY served so the one they sent you 18 months ago is irrellevant You will get money from them if they issue another SD because you can easily get it Set Aside due to the fact that the alleged debt is Statute Barred. You can hit them for costs

SGH Law - Practice Areas - Services to Lenders - Articles# This was not written on an internet blog but in fact is a solicitors website. I did not want to publish the whole article but suggest you read Scottish Equitable plc -v- Thompson (2003) 7 EG 137 (CS) CA

Looks like they have a desire to pay you a huge amount of money when you get it set aside if indeed SNOTCALL actually call. What exactly is a Statutory Demand for Bankruptcy.??? I think their legal department have difficulty distinguishing their arias from their elbows

Im sure you can find some nice numbers to put in for them

Dear Cretins I refer to your letter dated xxxx I am entitled to seek legal advice wheresoever I wish including the internet. You have failed to prove that a notice of assignment was served on me in accordance with S136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Your interpretation S 20 of the Limitation Act 1980 is in my opinion wrong and your attempts to try to CONvince me otherwise are im my opinion a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Your attempts to mislead me about my legal rights and the legal status of the alleged debt are not only a breach of these regulations but also contrary to the OFT Guidelines on the collection of debt. The true position, according to the courts, is that the cause of action arises once there is a failure to make the payments due under the mortgage and the 12 years starts from then. Of course an alleged debt may still exist but is unenforceable through the courts. I nothe the following sentence from your letter This is a clear breach of Data Protection Legislation if you account manager discussed this matter with someone as to whose identity they were uncertain. Please be advised that not only have I used the internet but have also sought legal advice from the sources mentioned in the Civil Procedure Rules and have not changed my opinion that the matter is in fact Statute Barred. yours etc

I am aware that a mortgage debt is not Statute Barred for 12 years. I was just giving an example of how ridiculous their theory sounds. According to them a debt could technically never become Statute Barred

You do not need to spend money on legal advice. The simple truth is that the DCA are telling downright lies and trying to scare you into making a payment of a STATUTE BARRED DEBT. The law is very clear. We are right and they are totally wrong. What they are telling you is wrong and by making it appear otherwise THEY are committing an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Look at it logically. If what this company was saying was true every lowlife DCA would sell on all debts once they had them for 5 yrs 11 months and then another bunch of muppets could claim that they had another 6 years to enforce them until in another 5 yrs 11 months they sold it on again. Total and utter bollocks. The six years start when the debt goes into default which is generally 1 month after the last payment or written acknowledgement You really need to report these losers to ALL the regulatory bodies and your MP. They are not fit to hold a TV licence let alone a Consumer Credit Licence.

Dont concern yourself with these guys. I have seen them off with one letter. As I said sit back and see what nonsense they come up with in writing

They have shown how increibly stupid they are. They say they are going to report identity theft to the police but are also going to attach a summons to the report. They are chancing there arm. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES speak to them on the phone. They are so stupid that they do not even realise the Debt Collection system is different in Norn Iron My advice to you is do nothing until you get a letter from them to your present address. Come back then and depending on what nonsense they spout I will giove you a suitable reply to get them off your case. Should they send their threats to your friends address then get him to mark clearly on the letter NOT KNOWN AT THIS ADDRESS and stick it in the post to them. Even if the debt was yours its now well and truly Statute Barred and they can do diddly squat about it.

Knock Knock Whos There The Avon Lady............................................Your Bell's broke

As ASSet Link seem intent on playing silly beggars then you must report their sorry asses to the above official bodies as well as your mothers MP

Hey thats my line :grin:

As far as I am aware that so long as the client does not actually admit his or her guilt to the barrister then the barrister treats them as not guilty and defends them. However once the barrister discovers that his client is guilty he then tries to use technical issues and points of law to prevent his client being convicted. I once asked a barrister how on earth could he defend a person who was obviously guilty and he told me its not up to him to prove innocence but the prosecution to prove guilt. How some of these guys sleep in their beds at night is beyond me

Or in the case of Simpleton, the CSA

Looks like it has been sprayed and done the trick. Would it be too much to ask the mods that every time a troll is spotted that his employer is named and shamed

Remember folks that when a barrister gets up in court they say '' I AM INSTRUCTED '' So if she gets up and says ''I am instructed that this form is the original'' then she is not telling any lies. Of course whether or not she beieves what she is instructed is another matter. I have been involved in a lot of criminal cases where the defendant was as guilty as hell but all the barrister has to say to cover their ass is ''I am instructed etc etc etc