MacKenzie Hall and a fictitious payment

[Captain Spaulding]

Folara, you have some really good info here. Personally I would send the telephone harassment / harassment documents - no question about that.

 

The DCA has now confirmed (in writing I hope) that there was a payment made in 2006. Your opponent has played their next move, now your have to counter and call the bluff - get them to prove evidence of this, let me explain....

 

Resending letters and asking them to bugger off will not cause much of an impact as they live and breath it. The whole value of a statute barred debt is that it is not enforceable however if the DCA states they received payment, this throws the whole balance out.

 

I would write a letter to them asking them to prove the following....

 

Dear DCA,

 

I refer to your previous letters that threaten legal action of which have been noted and kept for complete audit.

 

Firstly, please be aware that all correspondence must be conducted in writing. Further telephone calls will be noted and reported as harassment.

 

I will refer to a telephone conversation that was recorded on where I clearly informed you that the alleged debt was statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980 Section '5'. The representative went on to inform me that they 'thought' a payment had been made in 2006.

 

Please be aware that I dispute this payment as I do not and have not acknowledged this debt in writing or payment to yourself, a differing representative or your client.

 

I require you to provide me with the following evidence of the alleged payment:

 

A true and original receipt

Payment Date

Payment Method

Name of Payee

Payment amount

Reference on Payment

Full statement of account showing payment entry

As members of the CSA, I would like to refresh you of your obligations under The Office of Fair Trading: Debt Collection Guidance Section 2.14, Subsection 'b' which clearly states that:

"it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from

the creditor during the relevant limitation period

 

it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, for

example, falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally

recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal

provisions, and

 

continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to

harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of

Justice Act 1970."

 

I once again confirm to you that the status of this alleged debt is statute barred. Any further pursuing / threats will be directly reported to Trading Standards, The Office of Fair Trading, the Credit Services Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service

 

I look forward to your provision of described evidence and expect your due diligence in this matter

 

Yours Faithfully

 

CS

Edited July 9, 2008 by Captain Spaulding

[Captain Spaulding]

Of course, please feel free to use it... Its main purpose is to 'call out' the DCA and to either prove that payment was made or admit that the 'representative' made a little mistake...

 

If they can provide evidence, its better to get it pro-actively rather than it hitting a bulk processing court right?

[Captain Spaulding]

Folara, its NOT unfortunate - its great. These **** usually lie on the phone, infact they are pretty much paid to lie and bully people - a n y w a y....

 

Send the letter, you then have audit and they will need to respond which will give you evidence should you need it...

 

All the best