Thanks for the reply, I'm not actually trying to wriggle out of this as such, I was always accepting in paying what was set by the court for as long as it took to pay it. Though with the above in mind, that at the point they sent the letter regards to cancelling the payment plan\ agreement being nothing to do with what was a variation order endorsed by the court as said above. The intent and impression given by Intrum when they took it over and the letter all seems to give the impression that by using wording like "there is problem with the payment plan" " we have cancelled the agreement" they therefore cancelled exactly what was set by the court in what was a variation order. They also at the time suggested I therefore needed to negotiate a new payment plan than offered an alternative payment method for the variation order set\endorsed by the court. It was about that time payments into the payment account that was never previously an issue stopped getting accepted. If that was never their intent to give such a false impression then it begs the question to exactly what it was that they did mean and intend by that letter. Even then, that they closed the account used to make the payments at about the same time, they surely can't exactly claim I breached the CCJ and stopped payments myself as they stopped accepting the payments and never at any point offered an alternative payment method for the payments, simply the said letter. The payment options offered & or suggested by the court at the time was direct debit, standing order or payment via a card at a post office counter, the latter which was agreed by IND and they even sent the card out to facilitate this. As the bank account at the time I used never had my name on it my partner declined the other 2 options to give them access to the back details in any form as the matter was nothing to do with her.

Thanks Andyorch for clarifying that. However, is there anything similar or specific that covers CCJ's?. As whilst they may or may not act to enforce the CCJ, it would interest me to read up on and research to self inform and arm myself in the event that they try to escalate matters further. Like it would be a complete lie if they went back to court to try and enforce the CCJ or take further action citing I breached the conditions by stopping payments when they are the ones who cancelled payments.

I've been thinking about my case and past history with Intrum since they took over\bought the debt. And the 1 thing that's always hugged me to try & look into was that they, the claimant\Intrum cancelled the payments\agreement (or whatever you call what was set by the court judge as part of the CCJ). And I've always wandered if they can simply just cancel (I have it in writing they have cancelled it) the repayments that went before, was set by the court as part on the CCJ and agreed to by IND at the time. And if not can it be seen or considered as a breach by the claimant?. Now what I've found is not clear, Google comes back with zero info or cases on it a claimant themselves can actually breach a CCJ which I find rather odd. However what I have come by when trying to search the matter suggests there is a very strict process for either party with regards to such details. And that's called "PART 38 - DISCONTINUANCE" I'm not fully sure what exactly that "Part 38 Discontinuance" means or if it counts for anything or applies with regards to CCJ's. But if it does it might indicate they can't just discontinue or cancel any part of a claim or agreement without going back to court which they don't appear to have done. To do so can be a serious matter maybe and a breach of legal process. Not sure if anyone here understands this Part 38 thing or what it might mean if anything. But would be interested to hear it it could apply to show they legally acted wrong in simply cancelling the payments without first going back to court and then demanding I renegotiate an agreement with them directly?.

Ah, so apart from these recent letters then it's unlikely anything much as changed. But it was more the letter mentioning the charging order option that rattled me somewhat. That & with this changing of solicitors letter had me thinking what they might be upto.

Yes, I get what you are saying, not so much forgetting again, as I'm fully accepting no matter what the debt exists. But more their ability to take enforcement action, both before (as they claimed they would but failed to) and after the form to change solicitors went to the courts. As in if they can easily enforce it why have they failed to do so in the last 4-5 years?. I don't want to digress and go over old ground again, but they did cancel the payment agreement without reason that went before the court and was signed off by the judge as part of the CCJ judgement of whatever. I've hardly breached the CCJ myself since they stopped the payments and I still have the letter from IND stating they have cancelled it before payments ceased. Wondering can they therefore claim I've breached the CCJ conditions to enforce it?.

So previously they were wasting their time with enforcement threat letters where legally they never could at that point if they were not the appointed solicitors over the matter?. So whilst this form in itself is therefore nothing to worry about, does it not mean that they would at least have the correct legal status for enforcement now?

Ok, since the last letters received threatening enforcement action in not replied to within 14 days I've received 2 more letters, like the previous ones both received within a few days of the 14 days from which they were dated, seems to be a standard practice for them. The first letter from near 3 months ago again threatening enforcement action unless I reply with it the 3 days of the 14 remaining by the time it was received. Though with the added extra threat of information provided within that letter that makes things difficult to know if it could help identify me were Intrum to see these posts. The most recent received at the weekend yet again dated 12 days earlier was a N434 form with notice to change solicitors from IND to Intrum to act with regards to the claim and enforcement action and to contact them only from this point to arrange payment etc. Not sure if they are really getting ready for possible enforcement action with the N434 letter. But if they have an enforceable CCJ, then I just don't see why they have so far failed to enforce it?. Apparently they can even force me back to court by a previous letter posted here, yet so far no sign of that either. So any thoughts over this?

As in just wait and see what their next move is ?. Likely my preferred option as they have had no response from me yet & they have not even enquired to try and verify the person they are looking for is the correct person and present at the address.

Ah, didn't recall that, thought it was more purchasing of some of their debts. Can't deny the debt doesn't exist in 1 form of another regadless. Does ind even exist as a company then I wander?. makes unsure on how to proceed & respond now and how likely intrum are to really do much after this long if they really do have an enforceable ccj?.

Thanks for the reply, converted from image to pdf, so I hope this works. 2022-04 IND serviced by Intrum - no payment agreement.pdf

I now wonder if this now might be related to last year's connex letters I and several received?. As after hearing nothing from intrum for 2 1/2 years last month out of the blue I get 2 letters from them again over this threads issue. Since my last post in here and following previous advice, payments then stopped being accepted for some reason (barcode & account number not recognised I was told) and I was not negotiating anything with intrum and this no payments have been made is about 2 years. Moved house, contacted everyone re new address yet heard nothing from intrum despite also having been on the electoral roll constantly. 2 letters received, neither of which yet responded to or identity confirmed as the correct person, the first going over their very first letter from early 2019, saying the account is now being "serviced" by them and again inviting me to agree to a payment plan with them, didn't respond. Second letter received last week & unsure on how to respond. The letter is more ramping up with a threat to carry out a number of legal options. They say about IND may have taken legal action against me & saying how they are now serving the account on behalf on IND. They repeat about there being no payment plan in place and finished it with them or things will be subject to a review for further action. They also refer to if legal proceedings have been issued previously they might look at continuing with that and if IND have previously obtained judgement then they (intrum) by a number of mentioned methods look to enforce it by a number of methods including: Attachment of earnings Warrant of control Charging order Order for questioning Third party debt order. Not to sure on how seriously to take this. As if intrum have bought the debt then can they use the old ind judgement at all?

Still don't know DX as nothing is detailed either "client" or date of alleged debt. Even the call to connex last week they wouldn't say anything on who the client is or the age of the alleged debt, nothing at all. So at this point nothing is proved, verified or confirmed over the alleged debt which is suspicions in itself for me. The address they did disclose I've had no connection to for over 20 years, surely they can't be that stupid or think I am to simply accept a debt that would have to be at least 13 years statute barred. Slight update: I even received an email from global debt recovery saying my email details had been passed on by connex as they had received a phone call from a\the alleged person the letter was sent to so they are breaching data protection and or personal & confidential information at the very least. The email contact being of a different person and name the per was sent to. They are pretty much demanding I identify myself by sending them a copy of my tenancy agreement, for which like hell am I sending them anything. The email was and will not be replied to, but just giving notice if you contact connex by email they will pass that info on as a point of contact and ask you for personal information for you to prove who you are. What a pile of jokers!.

Still don't know DX as nothing is detailed either "client" or date of alleged debt. Even the call to connex last week they wouldn't say anything on who the client is or the age of the alleged debt, nothing at all. So at this point nothing is proved, verified or confirmed over the alleged debt which is suspicions in itself for me. The address they did disclose I've had no connection to for over 20 years, surely they can't be that stupid or think I am to simply accept a debt that would have to be at least 13 years statute barred.

Letter received from global debt recovery despite connex accepting the claim the person they were looking for is not living at the address and saying they would then remove our address from their file and look elsewhere. This was an actual lie from connex (no surprise there) and despite connex then being unable to verify either the person or the address they have to be correct has then sent a letter out under the global debt recovery letter making a demand for monies and to call them to discuss the debt without detailing any details of the client or verifying both the person or the debt. These letters will now all be ignored as I'm not getting into any discussion with this pond life.

Lol, rather than send to their office or p.o. box office address maybe people are better searching "Allen Process Solutions LTD" where the exact same and confirmed people look to have registered their company correspondence address to their personal home address, oh dear . Yeah, my mistake was to phone them before any info posted. Their mistake was to register a proven connection to their residential address. And where I to get ANY correspondence from either Connex or Global Debt Whatever over an assumed (by default due to lack of time) debt that's would if genuine be over 20 years old, well won't be me getting worried!!!

For me the point is, the connection to an address is unproven and denied by effectively 2 different people. In the absence of evidence to the country they have nothing to prove a connection to the address the letterhead sent to. They were emailed and called and on both occasions were told they have the wrong address and that person does not live at that address. If they continue to send letters either by connex or the debt company global debt whatever then this is harassment. And from a data protection point of view they can't disclose anything via mail to the same address or make a demand as the connection and right address is unproven and accepted via email and phone call to be the wrong address. So I don't see where they can go with this aside from seemingly feeling they can chase an assumed alleged debt from over 20 years ago. If they do start to harass & hound, well they have their personal home address ( by the looks of it) registered as the postal address their correspondence address for 1 of their other companies . They must be scraping the bottom of the empty slimey barrel of the debt world to cover the running costs of that very expensive Surrey home.

Right, as per other thread I can also confirm this Connex company relates to or more IS a debt chasing company, Global Debt Recovery (or whatever it what they said they were called). Clearly between us we have quickly uncovered and worked out who they really are and what the connection is. However, as the Connex company handling the "trace" appears not to be registered as a company in itself or registered to handle data under the data protection act DPA (if that's required) then are they not in breach of miss handling private & confidential data since clearly Connex have this personal data for people. Ok, in my case I'll enlighten a little, the address they refer to after they could confirm some of the private and confidential information "in connection with an address" was an address that there has been no connection to for well over 20 years. So in that respect their initial enquiries are quite comical as they are I assume chasing what would be an alleged debt from well over 20 years ago. Now back to data protection etc, my second, and likely last email to them I clearly stated I can confirm the person they are looking for is not at the address the letter is addressed to and can't confirm the person they are looking for is definitely the person in the letter. They state they will take our address off their file and look elsewhere. Then they get the call today where it's confirmed who the person is but stated they do not live at the address in the letter despite them asking again. Yet refused to be transferred to the debt company after stating who the "client" was simply being told no debt exists so have no intention of communication with this debt company. From a data protection point of view, can they still send letters out against what I said to the address in the letter even after connex stated they would remove it from their file?. Not overly bothered, as clearly they are chasing what is seemingly a historic 20+ year alleged debt, but more from a data protection point of view where both by email it's been stated and accepted the address the letter had been sent to is not that of the person they are looking for and also the same in the phone call. In other words, the current address for the person they are looking for is unproven.

Yes, I can also confirm them as debt collectors. Clearly operating under a satellite company that's neither registered or directly connected to any debt collection company until now. Their stupid mistake is that the trail from Peter Joseph Allen that I posted the weekend that linked to another company that also links to I assume his wife in a maiden name to appears to directly register the other company Allen Process Solutions to their residential address, a home worth well over £1 million. Oh dear, imagine people searching the registered address for that company and people that now appear to be trying to chase people for likely non existent or enforceable debts!.

Hmm, interesting you notice when just trying to Google "connex" nothing on this site now returns a result. However googling "connex tracing" does still return the result. Maybe some kind of search algorithm?. Doubt it would do any harm as said for all recipients who read these threads, even if recipients who have not posted, to contact them via email or withheld phone to enquire as we won't know for sure otherwise. I'm intending to try during the week, still got that gut feeling though. But as DX feels otherwise it's not giving much away to make some contact as he may well be right. I'll update if I hear anything else back.

If this could, as DX suggests, be inheritance related it might be of interest to point out that I've asked my siblings and none of them have received such a letter. So if it is, it's likely not via a direct next of kin issue as if so I'd assume they to would have been contacted?.

In my case they are asking for the person named in the letter in relation to connection with a previous address which the letter doesn't fully state. In this thread owners case they are asking for the person via their maiden name about information on someone else. So kind of different lines of enquiry in a way but does appear it could all be historic matters. I would also add that not knowing exactly how this thread owners letter is worded, mine states "we have been asked to locate". So it would be interesting to know if this thread owners letter states the same?. And in an email I have states "we have been asked by a client". Though this client is not stated Connex looks to be asking not as the source of the enquiry but on behalf of an unnamed client. So would some form of heir hunters not simply do all this themselves than outsource some of the work at cost to other companies reducing any possible percentage as a result?.

Right, no real update as such but I have heard back from them. The email pretty much says they are unable to discuss the matter further due to data protection and can only discuss the matter with the person they are looking for. I've read the thoughts of DX in the other thread and I was starting to come round to his line of thinking, But still don't get that data protection prevents them from disclosing a few details to the rough nature. However, with that in mind, I will contact them this week to confirm the connection to see what they want. But sure as hell won't confirm a contact address until I know for sure if it is likely as DX feels, some kind of heir hunters etc.

But IF, and that's a very big IF they are not doing this on behalf of a debt chasing client, either with intention of going to court or simply trying their arm for payment under threat then it doesn't make much sense that they are not forthcoming with some information other than referring to an un named client looking for someone with connections to a previous address?. You'd think they would be took more seriously and get a better response by being more open on the nature of things. For their letters to come across very much like debt collectors letters would naturally make people very suspicious to simply ignore and not respond.

Uncertain what they want, but gut feeling is debt related as all to similar to such letters. Wander if we a talking a single "client" or multiple?. The fact that a number of different people have received these letters maybe means there has to be a connection of sorts, either in the client or the reason for contact.

Information is very limited but there is indeed a website, connexme.co.uk. And as is known, Google comes back with zero results right now on both the company and website which is unheard of. The company isn't even registered as a company with companies house, the only search results are those of the threads on this site. Both the letters & website disclose nothing except that they appear to be based in Surrey as that's where the postal address is. And the ICO ref which is: ZB134627. The ICO ref connects to a person called "Mr Joseph Peter Allen". Now that does connect with companies house to a registered company called "Allen Process Sollutions" which is listed as a management consultancy company. Also connected to that person is a "Natalie Alice Allen" Now that may be coincidence, except that company is also based is Surrey to what appears to be a residential address (worth well over £1 million it seems). So a decent possibility that is a connection to 2 people as unlikely there are 2 people called Joseph Peter Allen with business interests based in Surrey.