Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About saintalan

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Sorry for being dumb. Gone to here and not sure what you mean by Scottish SB ? https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/299-legal/
  2. Afternoon DX100 et Al So home today to another letter. We refer to our response letter 29th August. Copy enclosed. (This was the compo letter with the cheque) Our client blah blah blah. Unless agreement in 14 days instructed to commence court actions etc etc. So now am I being harassed ? or are they entitled to still write to me ? The debt is no longer legally enforcable due to the 20 year prescriptive period. Should I respond or simply ignore now ? I believe if I respond I should refer to Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act, 1973
  3. Well Well Well. With regard to not hearing anything from Shoosmith, I today had an interesting suprise. Clearly my letters (Mentioned post 91) in December & January were to in effect "turn the heat up" and stall them from trying to proceed any further before my magical 20th anniversary of 20th August which has now passed. today I receive a large letter. Not a demand as you might expect. No finally someone has actually taken the trouble to investigate all of my complaints (Or stalling tactics). Its is a 4 pages long masterpiece. I might scan it later if you are interested however here is the CONCLUSION. Not sure whether to laugh or laugh louder. "Whilst I am sorry that you have felt the need to raise these issues with ourselves, I am unable to uphold your complaint. I trust you understand my reasons for this. However I am aware that there has been a delay in responding to your complaint and I apologise for this. Please therefore find attached a cheque in the sum of £50 in recognition of this delay." So the delay to my complaint, which is exactly all I wanted has netted me £50 !!!! Should I cash it. PS They have concluded that the Decree granted in August 1999 is valid and therefore will not be withdrawing demand for payment. Should I now counter with the 20 year prescriptive period or ignore ? Are they now deemed to be harrasing me for an unenforcable debt ? Maybe now the complaints department is working albeit slowly, that I should actually make a complaint that they deem the debt still enforceable. Cheers
  4. Hello DX100UK and all observers. I am delighted to announce I have had no further communication from Shoosmiths Todays date is 20th August 2019 That is the 20 year anniversary of the original decree granted at the Scottish sheriff Court on 20th August 1999 The 20 year prescriptive period should kick into force. Celebrate Would any further letters now constitute harrassment ? or does the debt technically still stand but just not enforcable ? They cant seek a new decree ?
  5. Sorry not attempting to be lazy. I keep finding simplistic statements but am unsure as to where I find the actual legislation. Ie embedded somewhere in this beauty http://www.parliament.scot/S5_Delegated_Powers/SB18-22.pdf Or particularly section 7 of this. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52
  6. Hi DX good news in a way. 2 months on and still not answers from them or any demands. Just remind me as in my head my key date is 20th August 2019 That is the 20 year anniversary of the original decree granted at the Scottish sheriff Court. When I was trying originally to avoid the debt by Status Barred rules I was reminded the Decree is subject to a 20 year prescriptive period. If I get to the "magic" date is there a relevant link I can copy the text from that would confirm the debt is no longer enforcable ? Something more substantial than this 1 line statement https://www.scotlanddebt.co.uk/articles/personal-debt/time-limit-recovering-debt-can-written-off
  7. Thanks DX. Presumably even the pondlife (Shoosmiths) should address my "points/complaints/concerns" before sending those dogs after me again ?
  8. Just to keep the thread alive. With my letter now at 2 shoosmiths addresses. First sent 10th December and then 25th January. I have had no further communication from them so another 2 months passed.
  9. Okay Thanks DX I have replied as above but more as a reminder for them to address my issues.
  10. Hi Not quite sure why you think the latest letter is significant. However it is now scanned. I do note the previous "hardball" was from edinburgh. This "stuff" is from payments at Northampton. fromshoo0119.pdf
  11. Hi DX this is what I have written today. Hope you approve. xxxxd out a few details. Your Ref: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Without prejudice Account Number: 6xxxxxxxxx Balance £3xx9.19 and then Supposedly up to £3xx0.60 and now supposedly down to £3xx0.35 To Whom It May Concern I note you have ignored my letter of 10th December 2018 which I have enclosed once again. I have proof of signature that you did receive said letter. You or your client Erudio Student Loans Limited need to take this letter seriously. Your latest communication dated 8th January which I have referenced above includes a copy not as detailed of the original decree from 1999, but a partial copy of a second extract decree from 2014. My previous letter details the problems with both of these documents. Once again I await your response to my concerns with the potential legality issue with your clients charge for payment. I also note your various changes in apparent balance. Perhaps you could document this fully in an itemized statement ? Finally my mobile phone number constitutes protected data under GDPR law. Perhaps you could kindly give me written details on how you legally came across said number and how you are legally using said number ? Yours faithfully
  12. Hi DX Update. I have just received a letter a few days ago from Shoosmiths. It is almost like they have simply ignored my letter (Post 48) However it is back to the slightly "softer" approach which at least suggests they have read it. They are back to asking me directly (without local sheriff officers) to come to an agreement to pay, that they can offer to their client Erudio. Back again to enclosing a income/expenditure form.(I have never returned one) For me this is undoubtedly a slight climb down from the recent aggressive behaviour. Further to this apparently for the 1st time ever they have traced my mobile phone number as they just called me. I did not confirm or deny who I was after they identified themselves, but hung up and have blocked the number. A text has since arrived presumably from another number asking for me to get in touch re recent correspondence. my thoughts are to reply again referring to my previous letter, asking why I have not had a "proper" reply. I certainly do not want to make any sort of offer again while I am hoping to kill the process till the 20 year anniversary of the decree. What do you think ?
  13. Hi DX Letter to Shoos sent recorded 1st on 10th Dec and signed for 11th Dec. No response as yet. Will keep you posted.
  14. This is my proposed final draft to send to Shoosmiths. I will send a copy of this with a cover email to the Perth Court. You happy with the content ? To Whom It May Concern I am writing to you to request you place this account in serious dispute. I must insist that you immediately withdraw demand for payment. I request that you confirm said action to myself, and pass on this information to your latest instructed agents Stirling Park Sheriff Officer & Debt Collection Services. On review of the information provided within the SAR from the SLC, I have found serious issues with the Decree granted on the 20th of August 1999, that could make said document invalid. As this is the sole basis of your action to collect the balance, then again I must insist that you withdraw your demand. As you will further note much of this relates to the use of incorrect address information in critical correspondence. Following a conversation to the Sheriff Clerks office in Perth regarding a number of points, they have requested I write to them so they may investigate my concerns. It is entirely possible this may result in a request to recall the decree. The following condition allows this to happen. Act of Sederunt (Simple Procedure) 2016 SSI 2016/200 Schedule 1 Part 13 The Decision Sub Section 13.5 (1) (e) You may wish to investigate yourselves some of my concerns ? The following communications were within the SAR pack. You will be aware that the SLC Legal department wrote to me on the 27th October 1998 at the completely wrong address of 49 Fictional Avenue Perth, warning that court proceedings will be instituted without further notice. The next correspondence I have within the SAR pack from the SLC Legal on the 1st October 1999 is again writing to a wrong address. Strangely this time a different one of 48 Fictional Avenue Perth, where they advise me an Extract Decree has been granted. There is no copy of said decree in the SAR. Neither is there any mention in the letter of the date the decree is granted. The decree was granted I have subsequently established on the 20th August 1999 *In absence. I verified this from the copy decree Shoosmiths supplied, and it further confirms it is for the wrong address. I can confirm from further documents in the SAR that the SLC update my address to the correct address on the 10th May 2000. Clearly this change is a number of months after legal proceedings. I have other questions that need to be addressed with regards to the legality of the serving, or lack of serving of the summons at the time. I also have a potential issue with regards to the time before the communication of the actual Decree in absence was communicated to the aforementioned wrong address. A time of 41 days I believe. I await your response to my concerns with the potential legality issue with your charge for payment.
  15. I just spoke to Perth Clerks A couple of things came to light. They did indicate they could be quite helpful and look into specifics for me regarding whether the original Warrant was wrong/invalid etc. I would need to email them directly which i will certainly consider. Fair play to them they did not think an actual recall of the decree would potentially actually do anything more than extend the whole can of worms. Clearly that is not my real end game. I was quite candid in that August 19th 2019 is the key date and beyond that I do not care. They could not/or would not advise me on how to stop the charge for payment. I could ask them this outright in any email ? Should I in effect just email them close to a copy of my proposed letter to shoosmiths asking to comment ? I really would just like to get a letter off to the vultures.
  • Create New...