Might also be because the "other" scottish bank owns the "other" scottish bank. Not denying shouldn't have proof of who the owner is - the usual first contact about telephone or letter - a debt purchaser MUST ALWAYS send an assignment letter before ringing. Not saying this always happens but it could also be that the purchaser has sent the assignment letter to the last known address and then traced another address. Either way I go back to what I have said previously if you really do not know who the owner is then I agree you should ask for proof of ownership. I think there is confusion on this forum as to what this legal proof should be in the form of. Perhaps you could clarify this?

Connaught Collections UK Ltd is a DCA that is owned by 1st Credit Ltd who are a large debt purchaser. Whilst Connaught also work directly for lenders as a DCA it is also possible that 1st Credit have bought your debt and have passed it to Connaught. If you haven't had any correspondance on this for a while it is likely that they have recently traced you (probably via a credit link if you've recently applied for credit/mobile phone etc). This is via a link from your previous address to your current address. Try and remember if you ever received any letters from 1st Credit as it will probably give you a better clue who the legal owner of the debt is. There are also letters on here if you do contact them that will help you find this out without acknowledging anything - obviously if you do make contact then they will know they have definitely located you so think carefully before you do this. Regarding the "intention" to issue a bankruptcy it is highly unlikely they will do this as this will be at "their" cost which would just add to their loss on the debt. Very few lenders/DCA's will ever take this course of action. By the fact that it says "intention" means they are threatening this course of action as a way to get you to contact them. In part by the fact that you have responded to it shows it has the desired effect one way or the other. Regards as to whether the account is statute barred you need to work back to the last time you would have acknowledged the debt. This could simply be sending a letter saying you can no longer afford the repayments, or a phone call to the same, or the last time you made a payment against the account. If this is less than 6 years then it is still "legally" enforceable. With regards what you do next I guess that is upto whether you morally feel as though you should repay the debt or if you are in a position to repay the debt of course. Obviously if you contact them they will try and push you to repay back as much as possible so if you do contact them to repay I suggest you be prepared for what you can "realistically" afford first so you do not get pushed into repaying back what you cannot afford. If you are still unsure what to do then perhaps suggest also speaking to your local Citizens Advice Bureau. good luck which ever option you choose!

Olibubble are you sure Mackenzie Hall have said they have "bought" the debt or are they just working on their behalf. Mackenzie Hall as far as i know only work on a commission basis (i.e. like a DCA) for debt purchasers. Is it possible they could have said they are now working the account instead of actually bought it? If you have a letter from mackenzie it "should" clarify the difference.

As far as the bank posting it as satisfied it's either an error or it isn't actually satisfied but marked as sold to a debt purchaser. What is "supposed" to happen is a bank marks the file as sold by posting "8" on their status on the account when they update - this 8 = sold to debt purchaser and then the debt purchaser opens the account as open again under their own banner. This is what is known as the rules of reciprocity between a seller and a purchaser. This is an obligation by both sides of the transaction so one "shouldn't" exist without the other. With regards the bank forecasting their losses it doesn't stop them trying to minimise this loss (i.e. by selling the account and getting back what they can). With regards the purchaser they also have to work on the basis that they have to fund the transaction upfront (i.e. if they are buying a large portfolio this could in itself be millions - rather ironic really they get in to debt to buy debt!). This financing obviously has a cost upfront and so does the cost of the call centre and staff etc,etc. You can also assume that there will be a high % of the accounts they will never be able to find or even strike up an arrangement with. On top of this the payments that they will expect to receive will also be over a long time given most people they will talk to will be in severe financial difficulties by the time they get the account. Add to this obviously not all will either have any ability to repay or even any will to repay. All this amounts to their "calculated risk" upfront on what they pay as a % on the debt. Either way if they get contact they are going to be keen to get an arrangement one way or the other to clear the amount. Obviously the more payments they get the lower their risk is in what they have paid upfront. This doesn't give them the right however to mistreat/misguide/treat people unfairly which is clearly why these forums have alot of use to advise consumers accordingly.

When you say claim back on insurance what insurance do you think they have against debts that they get? Credit insurance is generally only used for businesses making credit decisions to other businesses not to consumers. The insurance individuals have (payment protection insurance is purely between the consumer and the insurance company). Obviously banks get a kick back for recommending consumers to take this up! The banks take the hit of the net difference to their P&L this is what their charge off of bad debt is which is what you get all the reports in the papers about - i.e. bank charge off rates increase ...x% . As all banks cannot claim back VAT then they also cannot claim bad debt relief and therefore the difference of what they are owed to what they sell the debt for is a real loss. Obviously this is what they anticipate/forecast forward on which also determines what they set interest rates on so they can still make "huge" profits. With regards a debt purchaser they have to try and recouperate their upfront investment + any cost they incur in the process. Therefore I guess they are weighing up their upfront risk to what they believe will happen over time. If it's of any comfort not all debt purchasers make money on debts they buy as there was one recently that went into liquidation.

I don't think I am actually suggesting any different - I agree if you are unsure as to whether the company owns the debt or indeed they are collecting on the correct amount then yes you should query it. I also agree that there are definitely issues with how some of the agencies respond whether this is intentional or not. However the only way forward is to deal with them, although I accept this should be cautiously, until you are happy that you are dealing with a bonefide claim. I don't think we are actually saying anything differently perhaps I just haven't made it as clear as I should have. Apologies for confusion if this is the case.

I accept if you are unsure as to whether the debt is yours or you do not think the amount is owed is the actual amount owed you should absolutey query it. Never disputed this once in fact if you actually read what I said above I suggested going back to query the breakdown of the balance. I am however a firm believer in facing your problems head on rather than trying to use delay tactics instead. However, if you "genuinely" think the amount is not owed or even the right balance then absolutey you should query it 100% and this is obviously where the letter templates on this forum is extremely useful. Either way I hope you come to an amicable ending.

Legal and Trade's call centre is in preston so it is the same company. Blair Oliver Scott is bank of scotlands in house debt collection agency and Capital Bank is also part of Bank of Scotland. Not sure I understand what problem is as it appears you have made a perfectly reasonable offer to settle the debt. Legal and trade are a debt collection agency so why would they refuse to accept the £100 per month? All of the above "delay tactics" that may tie the agency up in knots for a while but in the end you will still end up in the same position having to talk to someone on the end of the phone who will set up an arrangement on the account, whatever method of how you repay it. Sounds like you are sensible in that you are not trying to deny you owe the debt or even trying to find some loophole to desperately trying to avoid the debt therefore why not have another go and try and call them again. If the person on the end of the phone is a moran either hang up and call back until you get someone sensible. Goodluck!

I appreciate you may wish to know that they legally own the debt but what makes you so sure they don't? Debt management of overdue debts :: Capquest They are one of the larger debt purchasers in the industry. I used to be in the industry until I set up my own legal practice. I also used to work for a major lender and therefore know a little bit about this subject. All the above will do will delay having to pay the debt and probably make it more awkward for you to come to a flexible way out of this. As long as the debt is valid, you will obviously know whether this is possible or not, and as long as the debt isn't statute barred (6 years since last acknowledgement) then my advice to you would be to talk to them, explain your circumstances and come to an arrangement as to how you repay the debt (assuming you do owe it of course). If you don't believe you owe the amount then request a breakdown. Capquest are a purchaser of debt, usually when they buy a debt the original lender, in this case A&L will send just before a letter saying that they have sold the debt to Capquest. If the last time you had any contact with A&L was at a different address then chances are this would have gone to the last known address. Capquest will then attempt to trace you using credit bureaus that hold alot more information than you think they do! Every account you have with a bank, lender, mobile phone company, BT, some of the utilities, electoral roll etc,etc. All of these companies share info to the bureaus. As a debt purchaser these guys have access to this info so this probably how they found your new address. The telemessage idea is clearly a way to get you to contact them given most just ignore the letters (obviously it worked!). My advice is don't be intimidated by these guys talk to them and come up with a solution that fits your financial circumstances, by the fact that they bought it for less than what you owe then they will be a lot more flexible than a bank as they have more power to discount the debt or accept arrangements over longer periods. You can listen to advice on these forums if you like but in my personal opinion most just end up aggravating the situation and are delay tactics. Using the analagy above if you lent someone £5000 if they didn't pay it back wouldn't you say it was theft? Bit black and white I accept but end of the day since when has trying to run away from a problem ever got anyone anywhere? Goodluck and hope you come to an amicable solution - also hope the marriage goes ahead too, if it helps there is 75% of the population in debt, the average person over 18 is in debt of £18k and on average every adult has 4.3 credit cards - it's not as if you are on your own!

Surely the best thing is just to wait until they send back a break down of the amount owing. If Lowell is a debt purchasing company I doubt if they would have bought a debt that is legally statute barred. What would the sense in that be? The letter you received is probably just an automated letter as part of their cycle which is designed to try and provoke communication (either by letter or telephone). If you have sent them a letter requesting more information then await their response before you do anything else. If they take a long time in responding it is probably because they have backlogs in responding to letters such as yours. Regarding whether it is likely to be statute barred or not then whilst you may think it relates back to 95/96 it actually goes from the most recent of: 1) last time you made a payment on your account 2) the last time you acknowledged owing the amount outstanding (this could be simply a letter requesting a breakdown of the debt as you thought this had been paid off i.e. you are still acknowledging you owed a debt once 3) last time there was a transaction applied to the account (i.e. last time you spent something on your card. As I said chances are Lowell wouldn't buy a debt they couldn't legally enforce so I would await to see what they send you back. I may be slightly biased as I used to work in collections but generally these companies (especially the larger ones like Lowell's) are ok if you just communicate to them rather than aggrevating the situation by ignoring them. End of the day you will know whether you owe the debt or not when you finally get a break down. Also just because it is statute barred doesn't mean it isn't owed it just means they cannot take you to court and legally enforce it. Doesn't stop them writing to you requesting payment. Hope that is helpful despite not giving you a way out to "avoid" the debt which is what most people are looking for on here..