One quick question:

Which is the better option in response to this threat:

"Our client has now instructed us to proceed through the Courts to collect the above debt. Unless payment is received within 7 days, we will initiate the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claim which applies to this matter. Hopefully  you will seize the opportunity to settle this matte ramicably to prevent the issuing of a Claim in the County Court and the additional Court fees and Legal costs that this would generate"

1) call them and ask for NOA and DOA and tell them it is SB'ed

2) write them and ask for NOA and DOA and tell them it is SB'ed

3) wait until I get the PAPLOC claims form and then do step 2.

It would also be helpful if you explained why the choice you said is the best one., as I try to wrap my head around all this.

Thanks.

I see. Thanks. Just need to hold out for a few more months, then I'll be certain to be in the clear...

I will try to relax until then, but it is difficult.

Thanks for your help.

So are you saying I can get a court claim at any time from now, and there is nothing I can do about it?

There are no other intermediate steps CLI or the owner needs to do where I can push the time to action beyond 3-4 month threshold by slowing down or thwarting their response time?

All this considering that it is an international debt.

Don't these things take some time to process?

OK. I'd like to delay this court claim proceeding atleast until my safety window is atleast passed.

I'd say 3 to 4 months from now.

Is there any strategy I can use to achieve this goal?

And if I do get a letter of claim does this mean that it is now gone to court and the SB window is closed?

Thing is,

the debt owner does have my current address in the UK as I gave them this in 2013 by telephone when I called them just after I moved house for threatening to publish my personal details in a local news paper and the internet.

They went ahead and did so anyway.

It would be light work to find these personal details on the internet if you know what to look for.

Apparently the contract that I signed at the time permitted them to do so.

I suspected that my rights (GDPR) were infringed upon by this act, but was not sure one way or another, so I never pressed it and let it alone out of fear.

Since this event, for the whole of 2014 I was receiving statements regarding the debt from the original owner consistently, but at that time, I assumed it was statute barred then since I had not paid for over 6 years and never responded.

Sometime during this period (my best guess is around 2014), while I was still receiving statements at my current address I called over the phone to let them know that I believed the debt to be SB'ed.

They claimed that it was not since I had

1) made a payment in 2013, and

2) they have an email from me with my name printed, admitting that I owned the debt and will arrange to pay them. They then confirmed my current address again.

Both these things they claimed would have reset the SB window.

At this time, I checked my old statements and as they claimed, there indeed was an anomalous  payment made to the account at this time.

I am absolutely certain that this payment could not have been by me as I was in the UK at the time of the payment and never left since I arrived, never authorized anyone to make payment,  nor wired them any payment towards the debt. 

As for the email, I did not at the time ask for proof of this, but am very sure that it could not have been mailed by me (It is this email that I am also worried about).

I have no way to prove it is not mine however.

Regardless, since this telephone conversation, their communication ended for a while.

That was, until CLI started contacting me. Bringing us to today.

My point is,

the original owner does indeed have my correct address as they have been using it for a while now to send me statements.

Never any threat of imminent court action, just statements. That is, until CLI.

Yes. All my old addresses are there on my credit file.

Is this a bad thing?

What does this mean for me?

You say DCA does not have my legal address... so why am I getting mail from them at my current address???

It says here: "Later on if you seek out naturalisation in the UK, the CCJ may be an issue for the “good character” portion of the application."

What is a PAPLOC ? is this the same thing as a pre action protocol?

lso, I checked and can confirm that I do not have a CCJ

The claimant also knows my current address, but I ave not told them in writting.

Ah. PAP LOC = PAP letter of claim.

39 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

 

so you have lived elsewhere in the UK since you ended up at the address you are at now?

rented?

yes and yes. The DCA has my most current address.

28 minutes ago, London1971 said:

It’s not ineveitable , it’s not even likely. Since when has a CCJ ever had anything to do with applying for citizenship?

there is a good character clause. if the applicant has a ccj then the application very will likely fail - as per information on immigration website.

to the UK. A CCJ will make this impossible

I have to consider worse case scenario where I am issued a PAP so I shouldn't I plan for this before it happens if they eventually buy the debt and it becomes theirs?

How do I do this?

What do I say in my letter?

I have to prepare myself against their claim that the debt is not statute barred for the reasons mentioned above as well.

How do I do this?

What do I say?

I was told by a lawyer at [removed]  that an email could potentially reset the SB period.

All evidence that I have seen thus far other than what's here says this is the case.

The SB period for jamaica is 6 years for simple contracts.

Forgive me if I sound like a worry wart, but this thing is keeping me up at night.

I can't sleep or think about anything else.

It is torture and I want it to be over.

I cannot afford to pay, and I cannot afford a CCJ as I will be applying for citizenship soon.

I feel stuck in between a rock and a hard place where there is no way out.

OK...

So in the mean time, as I prepare for the inevitable, I would be most grateful if any one of you could please instruct me on how to write a letter to the UK collector requesting the following without compromising my case, or encouraging them to continue their harrassment?

Well, I definitely haven't made any payments to this alleged debt, and I have not sent them a signed letter within the past 6 years saying that I owe them "xyz".

Please don't think I am going around in circles. I just have not gotten a specific anwer to the original question:

The concern is the claim that I sent them a message one single time, using an address that was terminated several years ago. As it is no longer used. I have no way to verify whether this is the case or not. I have no idea of the possible contents of the message or if they indeed have a record of this possible communication. All I know is that from the fragmented knowledge I do have, it should put the SB'd timeline sometime mid next yea (by my estimate 4-5 months from now). This might explain why they are hotly persuing.

I understand the arguments put forward by many of the kind and helpful posters, however I am afraid I will need more than this;

1) either there is no physical evidence tying me to any alleged message sent, in which case I simply deny anything to the contrary and the debt is  rendered SB'ed.

or

2) In the event that I need to defend, I would very much like to to cite a specific instance in case law where this form of communication was successfully proven in a court of law to be insufficient to reset an SB.

The other thing that occured to me after reading the latest communication from the DCA is this: the DCA keeps refering to "their client", suggsting that they do not own the debt or possess a DOA. Do they even have a legal claim to be involved without either obtaining legal assignment or equitable assignment from the OC?

My understanding is that in a legal assignment of a contract, they are required to send NOA, whereas in an equitable assignment, they are not obligated to, but also cannot initiate any legal preceedings. The fact that I have not received an NOA, would put them into the latter category. In this case, it would have to be the OC that initiates the preceedings. What exactly should my next steps be when I do get a PAP from the DCA? Would this mean that the OC has initiated the preceedings? and If so, should I even be legally expected to communicate woth the DCA who has not proven they have a legal interest in the matter? Is it dangerous for me to ignore a PAP sent directly from them in this case?

I would also like to know if there is any way to prolong from reaching a court for as much as possible - atleast until the suspected SB window closes in about 4-5 months from now.

That's the whole point. I would like to find an example either proving o r disproving. case study, etc.

Until then, not finding one is not evidence of not being possible.

Should this be the case, is there anything I can do if the creditor alleges an email that I did not send to prove the alleged debt is still valid?

What I would like to know is, legally speaking, what reasong is behind a judge not  basing judgement on an email as proof of communication, alleged or real?

Are you saying that the clamiant would need to prove authenticity of the alleged email, or are you saying that they would need other pieces of evidence to support the idea that communication was made?

Could you please clarify? Preferably with some piece of legislation if such even exists?

By this, my fear is that the creditor can just trump up some email claimng that I sent within the limitation period to make it seem as if I was in communication with them. Is this something that they can do?

This is especially true if a digital signature can include just my name typed. From what I hear, CLI is uncscruplous in their tactics.

Can you please explain what a digital signature is? Can this not be as simple as typing your name at the end of an email?

If there is no evidence that the email came from me, can I deny it?

given the above, where might I find the legal framework that proves emails by themselves cannot reset a statute bar, especially when the email cannot be proven to have originated from me?

On the record, I deny having sent any email with a digital signature. Any email sent to an alleged creditor that they may have obtained could not have come from me. I would therefore request that they provide hard evidence that any and all signed communications or emails made within the statute of limitations that they may have, originated with me.

My assumption would be that a fake email might have been used to make it appear that I sent them communication.

Off the record, not sure if I did. It was a long time ago.

Please do not think I am trying to be a pain. I do appreciate the help you have provided. However, when I research, I come up with statements similar to this:

The admission in writing has to be accompanied with a signature, arguably an email with a digital signature could be sufficient acknowledgment. A digital signature could be interpreted as your name typed at the end of a letter.

It would really help if you could provide some concrete legislation or precedence that proves emails cannot be used to reset statute of limitations.

Could you please?

If the only peice of evidence of communication claim was a single email, could I flat out deny the correspondence?

OK. The thing is, if I do get a PAP next month, and I am correct in thinking that the alleged debt which would normally be statute barrred in april next year would no longer be since action was taken before expiry in april?

Could this not be the reason why they are pushing it now?

The communication was by 2nd class mail. Could they be attempting for a backdoor CCJ?

Based on previous response, are you saying that if this were legit, communications should be through a solicitor?

Also, The link you provided states it only applies to England and Wales. The debt is international., so does nay of this appli?

Furthermore, could they not be using one of their internal solicitors?

OK. Also, can they legally act on behalf of an international creditor when they do not own the debt? Is this even possible?