Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ancient'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day

Cost Per Day


Found 2 results

  1. Hello newby so please be kind. I am and have always been in Scotland. I had a student loan back in the early 90s. I missed a deferment in the mid 90s and they enforced me to pay the whole lot. At this point I stuck my head in the sand and moved house a couple of times. I never heard anything and got a mortgage no problem in 1998. I sold that house in 2006 and rented for a few months. Got a mortgage at my current house in 2007. Clearly never had any issues on my credit checks back then. the SLC must have tracked me down (over 10 years on) as I started getting "statements for information only" from them on an annual occurrence. They were clearly marked as "not a demand for payment". I therefore assumed they were statute barred. Checked my credit reports recently and still nothing of any relevance. Recently appears Erudio were sold my loan so I ignored their letter. Today however I had a more threatening letter from Shoosmiths LLP. They claim my account (The slc) is subject to a decree granted by the court. (No specifics). Now I know of no CCJ/Decree. Certainly none on my current file within the last 6 years as I have just spent a tenner checking. Also getting all of my mortgages/credit etc over the last 15 years hardly suggests there ever was a court enforcement. Can/do Erudio/shoosmiths try fishing with bare faced lies ? I would prefer to ignore all correspondence but this one has got me slightly twitchy. I realise their difficulties in enforcing even if there was a very old ccj/decree. However how do I find out if such an expired document ever existed ? Are they raised in the local court as to where SLC would have been chasing ? If so can I contact someone ? Many thanks
  2. Hey oop. Rusty ol' me passing through, helping someone and I'm pondering on best course of action (not helped by lack of docs from the OP). C/C debt passed from OC to DCA to another DCA, then returned to 1st DCA. Last contact was in 2009 or 10. Suddenly, N1 appeared, lodged by Drysden, of course. OP has no recollection of ever getting a default notice, assignment or anything like that. I've told him to acknowledge for now while I refresh my memory, but I am dithering on where to best handle it. I am thinking: - contact Arrows with CCA request. I am 99% sure that there will not be compliant paperwork, the CC was obtained in 1996 or 7, so odds of a valid contract existing are I think highly improbable. Even if by miracle it still exists, the odds of it having all the required elements and being legible etc is just as remote, IMO. - request paper trail: default notice, assignment. The POC is very generic and vague and does not mention any date at which the notices were supposedly sent to OP, which make me suspicious, in the past, when I have been hounded, if they had followed the paper trail properly, they would say so straight away. - defence: putting claimant to strict proof of, well, pretty much everything: the amounts, assignment, etc. What annoys me is that at some point, the debt became SB then one of the DCAs managed to scare OP into starting payment anyway (he didn't know anything about these illegal tactics)... The aim is either to get the claimants to see they won't get an easy ride of it a nd that this is one defendant which won't go down quietly, a nd hopefully discontinue sooner rather than later. If that doesn't work, then make sure that them chasing after a debt which became toxic a long time ago costs them a lot of money and work by the time OP gets to court. Any opinions, advice, have I missed an obvious trick? Fire away and thank in advance.
  • Create New...