Reveived incomplete information outside of 30 day CCA limit - advice please.

[EnlistedSquire]

Hi there, I've been a registered member here for a while now but this is my first post I think.

 

First of all, thanks to everyone who's posted the wealth of advice and information on here that's helped me so far. Now I need some more specific advice. Please bear with me because I think this is going to be a long one.

 

On 18th March this year I received a letter from Allied International Credit Ltd. I'd never heard of them, or from them, before then. It was a "final notice of intent" saying as I'd ignored all previous correspondence from them and if I didn't settle a debt of £2775.24 with them they will be considering proceedings against me. It included all the usual threats that seem to be standard fayre with these companies - I could lose my wages, property, assets etc. The client they claimed to be acting on behalf of were called Triumph Asset Services. I'd never heard of them either but Mr Google seemed to indicate that Triumph and AIC are part of the same group of companies.

 

I sent a letter back saying I didn't acknowledge owing any money, that I thought the fact both companies are connected was suspicious and to send me some proof of this so-called debt. This was sent recorded delivery and was delivered on 26th March.

 

I didn't hear anything back so I found a template CCA request on this site and sent it with a cheque for £1. This was delivered on 3rd May and the cheque was cashed a few days later.

 

I still didn't hear a dicky-bird from them so on 19th June - well after their 30 days ran out - I sent another template letter from this site (2nd post down here: consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/139373-consumer-credit-act-1974-a - sorry, I'm not allowed to link this for some reason) about their failure to respond and that the account is now in dispute. Unfortunately, Royal Mail have, until now, failed to record delivery of this letter so I sent a second copy yesterday.

 

However, today I have received a letter on NatWest headed paper dated 30th June. It doesn't offer much in the way of information, there's certainly no copy of any signed credit agreement. This is the main part of it:

 

Date account opened: 12 June 2002

Debit balance: Contact Allied for up-to-date-balance.

Interest rate: nil

No interest or charges accrued on account since 4 October 2002

Now, in June 2002 I was living and working in France and I definitely did not open any account with NatWest. I used to have a student account with them so I suspect that, as I left Britain in 2001, some of my post was still going to my old student address and someone made use of my details to rack up some debts.

 

So I've got three main questions:

 

1. I can (probably) prove I was in France at the time, but that doesn't necessarily follow that I didn't come back to the UK for a weekend and open an account with NatWest. Where do I stand with proving this isn't anything to do with me?

 

2. What is the situation given that this information seems to be incomplete, I.E. I haven't received a signed credit agreement or anything else to convincingly prove the existence of this debt?

 

3. What is the situation given that this letter arrived outside of 30 days after their receipt of my credit agreement request?

 

Any advice or information would be more than welcome.

 

Thanks.

 

Darren.

[42man]

Darren if you have neither made a payment nor acknowledged the debt in 6 years (5 in Scotland) then it is statute barred and they can't take legal action to get the money back...(some will try but they will fail if the debtor receives advice as such)....

 

Send whoever is chasing you for the debt this letter 'M' send it by recorded delivery and do not hand sign it...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html

 

If it is not statute barred then send them this...(send it by recorded again)

 

Account In Dispute

 

Ref:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Thank you for your letter of xx/xx/xx, the contents of which have been noted.

 

You have failed to respond to my legal request to supply me a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account.

 

On **DATE** I made a formal request for a true signed agreement for the alleged account under consumer credit Act 1974 s77/8. A copy of which is enclosed for your perusal and ease of reference.

You have failed to comply with my request, and as such the account entered default on **DATE**.

 

The document that you are obliged to send me is a true copy of the executed agreement that contained all of the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and was signed by both your company and myself as defined in section 61(1) of CCA 74 and subsequent Statutory Instruments. If the executed agreement contained any reference to any other document, you are also obliged to send me a copy of that document.In addition a full statement of this account should have been sent to me detailing all debits and credits to the account.

 

Furthermore

 

 

You are aware that the Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for a request for a true copy of a credit agreement to be carried out before your client enters into a default situation.

 

If that request is not satisfied after a further 30 calendar days your client commits a summary criminal offence.

 

These limits have expired.

 

As you are no doubt aware section 77(6) states:

 

If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1)

 

(a) He is not entitled , while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

And

 

(b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law.

 

As you have Failed to comply with a lawful request for a true, signed copy of the said agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, Failed to send a full statement of the account and Failed to provide any of the documentation requested.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Furthermore I shall counterclaim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment.

 

Please note you may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect.

 

This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

 

Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data.

 

It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Should you not respond within 14 days I expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

 

Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY

Action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

 

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

 

* You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

* You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

* You may not pass the account to a third party.

* You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

* You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

 

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit.

You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

[EnlistedSquire]

Thanks 42man,

 

Your second option is the letter I've already sent them (twice thanks to Royal Mail). I will have a look at the first option though.

 

Cheers.

 

Darren.

[EnlistedSquire]

Just realised, as AIC first contacted me in March they are within the six year limit (account supposedly opened in June 2002). I'm therefore sending a letter reiterating they are outside the 30 day limit and pointing out I was in France at the time in question.

[EnlistedSquire]

Hi,

 

 

Here's an update, and I really need some advice now.

 

 

To bring anyone new to this thread up-to-speed, here's a quick rundown:

 

 

 

1. Received “final demand” from AIC in March 2008.
   
2. Send CCA request to AIC on 30/04/2008
   
3. Received a letter from NatWest on 30/06/2008 referencing my letter on 09/06/2008 – no such letter exists. I suspect this was a ploy to make it appear that they were within the 30 days allowed to reply to my request which they weren't. This letter also stated that this account was opened in June 2002.
   
4. I had already sent a letter to AIC (template from this site) saying they were outside the 30 days allowed etc. After receiving this letter from NatWest, I also sent a copy of this letter to them and pointed out that they had the date of my letter wrong and that in June 2002 I was living and working abroad so couldn't have opened and account wit them.
   

 

 

To date, I have still not heard a thing directly from AIC since their initial letter. I have now had a reply from NatWest to my last letter. The salient points are here:

 

 

...I am sorry if our letter quoted an incorrect date...Our letter also quoted an incorrect account opening date, as the above account was actually opened in 1999. I can only apologise for those errors.

I did open a student account with NatWest in 1999 and obviously they would have a record of that. I don't believe I owe them any money related to this account. This smacks of moving the goal-posts – it's like they've said “right, he can probably prove he didn't open anything in 2002. Look, he had an account in 1999, let's just tell him this money is owed from then. He'll have to pay up then.”

 

 

The reason why AIC has not been able to supply you with a copy of the Credit Agreement as requested is that your above account was a Student account and not a Loan. In line with the Terms and Conditions of a Student account, the Bank granted you overdraft facilities, in this instance with a limit of £1,100...Unfortunately you exceeded that limit...Despite several letters sent to you by the Branch asking you to contact them to discuss the situation, no response was received.

There must surely have been a credit agreement if I opened an overdraft facility shouldn't there? I don't dispute that I opened an account under the circumstances described above but if they're in breach of the 30 day limit, then they're in breach whether they like it or not. Does the CCA cover overdrafts etc. or just traditional loans?

 

 

I assume the letters from them, if sent at all, arrived after I left (it being a student house) and they were never forwarded on.

 

 

Following transfer [to the Debt Recovery Department] this Office issued a Default Notice on 17 June 2002, followed by a Formal Demand for £2,775.24 on 1 July 2002. The Notices were issued to the address held on file for you...Please note that the Bank therefore fulfilled its legal obligation to issue the formal Notices to you at the address held on file.

 

 

On 16 July 2002, we received a letter from your parents, advising us that you were not at the [address]...We were therefore obliged to instruct Tracing Agents to try and locate you...a Default was registered with the Credit Reference Agencies on 30 July 2002.

A few relevant things here. Firstly, my parents have never lived within 200 miles of that address so if NatWest got a letter from them it was forged. Second, I was a bit young and stupid and probably didn't close the account formally as I should have. They couldn't find me because I was abroad.

 

 

I cannot see that the Default was registered incorrectly and the Bank is not prepared to remove it as requested. The information recorded will remain until it expires, or the debt is discharged, in which case the information will be amended accordingly.

 

 

By May 2003, this Office closed its file on your account, however, such closure does not absolve you from being liable for repayment of this debt. Subsequently, we passed the outstanding debt on to AIC and they are now responsible for collection. Therefore, I must ask you to liaise with them regarding repayment.

So where do I stand and whose court is the ball now in? AIC don't look likely to contact me directly so I guess I have to follow up this letter somehow. But what should I do? If it can be shown I somehow owe this money, is it still valid now that my CCA request has expired? Obviously writing to AIC offering a token monthly sum is out of the question as that would admit liability.

 

 

Please help!

 

 

Thanks.

[pmhcfc]

Hi,

 

So where do I stand and whose court is the ball now in? AIC don't look likely to contact me directly so I guess I have to follow up this letter somehow. But what should I do? If it can be shown I somehow owe this money, is it still valid now that my CCA request has expired? Obviously writing to AIC offering a token monthly sum is out of the question as that would admit liability.

 

 

Please help!

 

Thanks.

 

Out of interest, have you checked your credit files? Sounds like this is statute barred anyway - Thee's always the SAR route to establish things in a lot more detail.

[EnlistedSquire]

Out of interest, have you checked your credit files? Sounds like this is statute barred anyway - Thee's always the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) route to establish things in a lot more detail.

Checking my credit file is on my list of things to do but I had a baby just over a week ago so things are a bit manic at the moment. I did get copies of my credit file a couple of years ago and there was no mention of this on it, but I have been declined credit in the past because of some problem with this address but I never followed it up.

 

I'm now off to read up on what statute barred means!

 

[EDIT]So statute barred means they can't pursue me for the money but it will remain on my credit file - correct? Also, I'm not sure if that is the case here because according to NatWest's letter, the last action they took was in May 2003.[/EDIT]

 

Thanks.

Edited July 29, 2008 by EnlistedSquire

[OnMyWayOut]

It's about the last action YOU took in respect of making a payment or a written acknowledgement of the debt.

[EnlistedSquire]

It's about the last action YOU took in respect of making a payment or a written acknowledgement of the debt.

 

So that would be never then? Is my understanding of statute barred correct (as above)?

 

Thanks.

[OnMyWayOut]

When was the last time you paid anything against the account in question, or when was the last time you wrote to them accepting that you owed money on the account, like setting up a payment arrangement or agreeing to something from them about the debt?

[EnlistedSquire]

When was the last time you paid anything against the account in question, or when was the last time you wrote to them accepting that you owed money on the account, like setting up a payment arrangement or agreeing to something from them about the debt?

 

The last time any money would have gone into the account would have been around 2001 - before I left to go traveling. I only found out I supposedly owe money on it a couple of months ago and have never acknowledged owing this money - in fact I categorically denied knowing anything about it.

[pmhcfc]

The last time any money would have gone into the account would have been around 2001 - before I left to go traveling. I only found out I supposedly owe money on it a couple of months ago and have never acknowledged owing this money - in fact I categorically denied knowing anything about it.

 

Any debt that is statute barred falls off your CRA files after six years of non-payment/written acknowledgement of the debt. Unless of course there's a CCJ involved.

[OnMyWayOut]

The last time any money would have gone into the account would have been around 2001 - before I left to go traveling. I only found out I supposedly owe money on it a couple of months ago and have never acknowledged owing this money - in fact I categorically denied knowing anything about it.

Sounds statute barred to me.

[EnlistedSquire]

Sounds statute barred to me.

OK, that sounds like good news.

So what course of action should I follow? There's no mention of a CCJ in NatWest's letters. Would a CCJ show on my credit file? I will send off for copies of them anyway.

 

Would this be a suitable template letter to send - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-162366.html?

 

Also, if this is statute barred, can I get it removed from my credit file (if it's there) or will it only be removed if the debt is settled or withdrawn?

 

Thanks everyone for the help so far.

[OnMyWayOut]

It should fall off your credit file after 6 years anyway. The Statute Barred letter you've linked to above is the right one.

[pmhcfc]

OK, that sounds like good news.

So what course of action should I follow? There's no mention of a CCJ in NatWest's letters. Would a CCJ show on my credit file? I will send off for copies of them anyway.

 

Would this be a suitable template letter to send - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-162366.html?

 

Also, if this is statute barred, can I get it removed from my credit file (if it's there) or will it only be removed if the debt is settled or withdrawn?

 

Thanks everyone for the help so far.

 

And Ken Maynard of Cabot Financial has (very) recently said this:

 

Alongside these actual legislative requirements, there has been a growth in the use of ill advised consumer websites where disgruntled or mischievous debtors can exchange often inaccurate, but plausible, information on avoiding payment of debts. Most lenders and purchasers see this as merely a tactic to delay payment, but it adds to the increasingly difficult collection environment.

 

Not that 'ill-advised' eh Ken?

[EnlistedSquire]

Hi all,

 

I am just getting around to looking at this again (lots going on at the moment - the aforementioned new baby and now the Tax Credits are screwing me over - there might be some posts about that coming up soon).

 

Anyway, I want to make some changes to the template "statute barred" letter and would like an opinion on them before I send it off.

 

First, I was thinking of removing this paragraph:

We would also point out that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that “it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period”.

The reason being, NatWest do claim to have written to me at my last known address in July 2006 so that is less than six years between then and when this current batch of communication started.

 

I didn't get the letters because I'd already left but the honest part of me says it's not really fair to play that card and it could only get me into more trouble in future.

 

I want to change this paragraph:

The last payment of this alleged debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from us in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against us to recover the alleged amount claimed.

To:

NatWest have contacted me to advise that this alleged debt is an overdraft on a student bank account. As I believe activity stopped on this account in 2001, the last payment of this alleged debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time...

I think this suits the specific circumstances better - it's not a debt in the sense of "I took out a loan, made a few payments and then stopped" so saying the last payment was made over six years ago seems to be wrong. It's not exactly how I would like it to be worded so if someone's got an alternative, I'm all ears.

 

 

Thanks again.

[palomino]

And Ken Maynard of Cabot Financial has (very) recently said this:

 

Alongside these actual legislative requirements, there has been a growth in the use of ill advised consumer websites where disgruntled or mischievous debtors can exchange often inaccurate, but plausible, information on avoiding payment of debts. Most lenders and purchasers see this as merely a tactic to delay payment, but it adds to the increasingly difficult collection environment.

 

Where did he say that? Is it accessible on the internet?

[Michael Browne]

Is it accessible on the internet?

Apparently you need to get the link to this article emailed to you from the Cabot website or see here:

Where now for debt purchase? by Ken Maynard, Cabot Financial - Consumer Credit Support

 

the link doesn't work (don't ask!!) but you should be able to find it if you google 'Ken Maynard of Cabot Financial' (3rd link down)

Edited August 10, 2008 by Michael Browne

[EnlistedSquire]

OK, I kind of ignored the the quote from Ken Maynard but now it's come back to the surface.

 

Having no idea who this guy is, pmhcfc's post is a bit ambiguous as to whether he agrees with him or not. Are you saying I'm a "disgruntled or mischievous debtor"? I won't take offence yet, in case I'm misunderstanding.

 

In the meantime, can we get back to the original subject please?

 

Thanks.

[emmaf01]

If you then continue with the paragraph

 

"Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact... etc"

 

it seems fine.

 

I would be so tempted to do a SAR to find out what this letter from your "parents" looks like. Always remember to start each letter with the magic words "I do not acknowledge this debt". I'm so used to writing this now, I nearly put it on a letter to my sister in law!

[EnlistedSquire]

If you then continue with the paragraph

 

"Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact... etc"

 

it seems fine.

 

Thank you. It is my intention to continue the paragraph in the same way as the original, I should have made that clearer.

 

I might well make an S.A.R. to NatWest as that letter has intrigued me as well. I suspect that it might have been the next batch of residents in the house who forged a letter rather than go to the trouble of holding onto my post or forwarding it on to my (real) parent's house. The landlord had that address so it wouldn't have been too much hassle.

[emmaf01]

Ahhh, student house. Been there. It took ages to try and sort out. Good luck.

 

But yes it would be interesting to see that letter.

[EnlistedSquire]

OK, the Royal Mail delivered the statute barred letter on 18th August but I've still not heard anything. How long should I give it and what should I do?

 

Thanks.

[EnlistedSquire]

^ Bump! ^