Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Honestly you are all amazing on this site, thank you so much for your help and time. ill keep an eye out and only return when i receive a claim letter for sure also, i updated my address with amex and tsb before i even missed payments. the initial address was my family home but i dont reside there. to avoid a bombardment of letters there i have now updated my address, will they send all threats etc to the new address? Or old address?   do you reccomend i send both tsb and amex my update in address via a letter?
    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Capquest/Egg/HL - Letter Received and help mucho appreciated.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5385 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi Folks,

 

I've been following this forum for some time and picking bits of knowledge on how to deal with CQ but now need to ask a couple of direct questions.

 

Okay, taking you back to January, I received a SD from CQ (the first communication I ever had from them) relating to an Egg debt from 2000. I immediately went to my local court to see about the whole 'set aside' thing only to be told by a lovely lady there that there was no mention of a court, etc and there was, therefore, nothing they could do. The lady said it appeared to be a threat of one that was cleverly disguised as an actual SD.

 

The following day (a Saturday) I got a call from CQ (no idea how they got my phone number!) who managed to basically threaten me into handing over £200 on my visa debit.

 

Obviously I realised what a silly mistake it was to give someone money who just phoned you up and imemdiately called my bank who said, under the Visa scheme, I had to wait for 30 days to receive documentation justifying this. If I had not received this within 30 days then I could apply to have the money refunded.

 

The following Monday I sent (with help from this forum) the usual 'I do not acknowledge this debt' and 'request the DOA, CCA and statements'. The letter also closed (under advice from a former legal friend of mine) by saying "The monies paid did not and do not amount to an acceptance of the existence of any contract subsisting between myself and any third party in this matter, and was made purely on the basis of the unreasonable demands made by your agent on the telephone. I would advise you that should any legal action be forthcoming that we will be making application to the Court for the supply of your telephone records of this and subsequent telephone conversations.".

 

After 30 days had elapsed, I applied to have the Visa Debit payment refunded. The bank went through their usual process of questioning the transaction with CQ and gave them (I think) 40 days to respond. CQ did not reply to the bank and I received notice from my bank that, in light of this, they would proceed with the refund on the proviso that CQ did not object. The money was refunded a month or so ago after more attempts by the bank to contact CQ.

 

Now, with reference to the DOA and and CCA - last month CQ have managed to send through a) copies of the statements and b) a few pages of terms and conditions. They have still to send either a CCA or DOA.

 

On Friday I received a letter from HL stating:

"We act for CapQuest Debt Recovery Limited, who are agents for CapQuest Investments Limited, who purchased your account from Egg Banking PLC.

 

On the 07 Jan 09 a Statory Demand for bankruptcy under section 268(1) (a) of The Insolvency Act 1986 was sent to you.

 

 

We are informed that you responded to that demand and that on 17 Jan 09 you made an arrangement to repay your account by Weekly instalments of £200.00

 

Furthermore, we are informed that since the issue of the Statury Demand you have paid to our client the sum of £200.00, with the last payment being received on 17 Jan 09.

 

Failure to comply with your arrangement means that our client is now able to present a petition to the court seeking an order that you be declared bankrupt based on your non-compliance with the statutory demand."

 

There follows then the (I guess) fairly standard stuff about 'having a last chance' and how to make payment either by phone or online.

 

So, there are a couple of things here...

 

  • They have passed this onto HL without meeting the request for DOA and CCA.
  • There NEVER was an arrangement to repay £200 a week
  • The sum of £200 that WAS paid has been challenged and has been refunded due to CQ not defending the challenge.

Now it seems I need to write them (CQ) another letter but I don't know what to say. It appears that it is an offence that a) they have not supplied to DOA and the CCA but they are also completely erroenous in the information they gave HL.

 

Any clues on how I should progress? I feel as though by getting the bank to refund the payment I have stirred up a hornet's nest. :(

 

Thanks you in advance!

 

The Snood.

Edited by tonysnood
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I'd ignore the numbnuts. You can spend a lot of time writing to them cos they play very stupid as you see from their last letter. If you feel you must reply then reply you must, but I'd ignore them. I only ever replied to court proceedings and never to DCA threats. Must admit I had very little agro from anyone and there were lots of DCA's involved and involving 10's of thousands. Give it some thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Twofoot but the whole idea of not replying does make me very, very nervous. I'm happy to play hard and make the buggers work but I don't want to get it wrong and put myself in jeopardy if it ever goes to court.

 

It's a bit of a quandary, action or inaction?

 

If I had have known on the 17th Jan about the whole Statute Barred thing then I would have used that and told them where to go but, alas, that door is now firmly closed. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Complain to the OFT for duff stat demands being issued.. one is a mistake, but multiple instances of capquest not putting the court details and therefore invalidating the stat demand are on these forums.

 

Stat demand FORM clearly states they **must** fill in pages 1&2 + sections A B C, Section A is the court details.

 

You could also complain as HL state they can issue bankruptcy proceedings when in fact they cant as the stat demand wasnt filled out properly. Therefore this is a breach of the OFT guidelines as they are claiming a legal action that they cannot undertake.

 

S.

Edited by the_shadow
added the word "FORM" for clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites

Complain to the OFT for duff stat demands being issued.. one is a mistake, but multiple instances of capquest not putting the court details and therefore invalidating the stat demand are on these forums.

 

Stat demand FORM clearly states they **must** fill in pages 1&2 + sections A B C, Section A is the court details.

 

You could also complain as HL state they can issue bankruptcy proceedings when in fact they cant as the stat demand wasnt filled out properly. Therefore this is a breach of the OFT guidelines as they are claiming a legal action that they cannot undertake.

 

S.

 

Thanks for that, need to dig out the 'SD' again and double check it before I go that route.

 

Is it worth me writing a letter in the meantime stating that they have not fulfilled their obligation to comply with the CCA/DOA request and that it is an offence?

 

Whether or not the SD is correct (for the purposes of this question) should that really be the first communication from them? Seems very heavy handed to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not the SD is correct (for the purposes of this question) should that really be the first communication from them? Seems very heavy handed to me.

 

I would think the court would take a dim view on the first communication being such a heavy handed threat...

 

I would imagine the insolvency courts have a pre-action protocol or practice that is relative to the courts, i.e. a warning first before issuing a stat demand.. normally companies send a letter advising they are preparing stat demand documents and they will serve them on the person in a set timescale.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, need to dig out the 'SD' again and double check it before I go that route.

 

Is it worth me writing a letter in the meantime stating that they have not fulfilled their obligation to comply with the CCA/DOA request and that it is an offence?

 

Whether or not the SD is correct (for the purposes of this question) should that really be the first communication from them? Seems very heavy handed to me.

 

If they havent complied with the s78 (did they send anything back at all?) then your defense against a bankruptcy petition is

a) Invalid SD issued, no chance to set aside so complete abuse of due process

b) No CCA sent back, no enforcement action is allowed whilst the s78 isnt responded to.

 

Two showstoppers for them as far as I'm concered.. I suspect they know about a) and its a tactic to scare you whilst ensuring that you cant set-aside and get costs from them.. this is why a complaint needs to be made as whilst you have found CAG others might not and be forced to pay these brutes.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they havent complied with the s78 (did they send anything back at all?) then your defense against a bankruptcy petition is

a) Invalid SD issued, no chance to set aside so complete abuse of due process

b) No CCA sent back, no enforcement action is allowed whilst the s78 isnt responded to.

 

Two showstoppers for them as far as I'm concered.. I suspect they know about a) and its a tactic to scare you whilst ensuring that you cant set-aside and get costs from them.. this is why a complaint needs to be made as whilst you have found CAG others might not and be forced to pay these brutes.

 

S.

 

Great stuff. Thanks SO much.

 

So, I'll write a letter informing CQ that they have failed to respond to the CCA request today. When I dig out the paperwork (I'm in the office at the moment) then I can double check and consider whether to follow that with a letter about the SD.

 

It's the OFT I complain to, is it? Is there an accepted protocol for this?

 

Sorry for all the questions!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, one more question - should I reference the fact that no payment agreement was reached and that the payment I had made was refunded under the Visa scheme, undefended by CQ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff. Thanks SO much.

 

So, I'll write a letter informing CQ that they have failed to respond to the CCA request today. When I dig out the paperwork (I'm in the office at the moment) then I can double check and consider whether to follow that with a letter about the SD.

 

It's the OFT I complain to, is it? Is there an accepted protocol for this?

 

Sorry for all the questions!

 

Yep you need to send the account in dispute if not already sent to capquest. I would ignore HL. If the stat demand has nothing in C then its invalid as it doesnt give you the chance to set aside as per your rights under the insolvency act.

 

You could alter the letter to add no agreement to pay has been made and the previous erroneous payment has been reclaimed.

 

The OFT need to receive a letter/email about both HL and Capquest, unfortunately they will only file it against the companies, they dont take on personal complaints but the more complaints they get the better for the next guy or next time so to speak.

 

S.

Edited by the_shadow
Added another bit save writing another post :-D
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep you need to send the account in dispute if not already sent to capquest. I would ignore HL. If the stat demand has nothing in C then its invalid as it doesnt give you the chance to set aside as per your rights under the insolvency act.

 

The OFT need to receive a letter/email about both HL and Capquest, unfortunately they will only file it against the companies, they dont take on personal complaints but the more complaints they get the better for the next guy or next time so to speak.

 

S.

 

Obviously the account was put in dispute when I sent the s78/DOA request back in January. They seem to think they have fulfilled their obligation by providing some T+Cs and statements - no DOA, no CCA - so I need to 'strongly' remind them that they cannot enforce while in dispute.

 

Found this in 'tinterweb... Worth adapting for my purpose do you think?

 

Re: my request under s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me dated **DATE**, the contents of which are noted. However, the reply received by me does not fulfil your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter, dated **DATE**. Upon receipt of the original request the specified account legally entered into disputed status.

 

My request remains outstanding. An application form does not constitute a true copy of a credit agreement and that which you sent doesn't even contain all the prescribed terms and is not 'properly executed'.

 

As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law.

 

You had until **12 days DATE** to provide me with the true copy I requested. After that date you entered into default of my request. Whilst the account is in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agencies (or any third party).

 

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the data subject to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

 

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

The time limits, which are laid down in the Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 are clear. You must supply an executed credit agreement within 12 working days of a proper CCA request. If you fail to comply with a legitimate request the account enters a default situation and if you fail to comply after a further 30 days you commit an offence. You entered into a default on **12 Days DATE** and subsequently committed a criminal offence on **MONTH DATE**.

 

Therefore you have 7 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint, otherwise your conduct will be reported to the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Ombudsman and Trading Standards. Any investigation undertaken by them may affect your ability to hold a consumer credit license in the future.

 

Take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

 

Communicate in writing and ONLY in writing, your telephone calls will NOT be answered.

 

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Thanks again for your help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the account was put in dispute when I sent the s78/DOA request back in January. They seem to think they have fulfilled their obligation by providing some T+Cs and statements - no DOA, no CCA - so I need to 'strongly' remind them that they cannot enforce while in dispute.

 

 

Yep will do as much as any other, add in the bit about the incorrect payment reclaimed so no acknowledgment.

 

Just one thing... this debt from Egg, when was the last payment made... if there were 6 clear years when no payment was made AND you have not admitted the debt in writing at all then it could be stat barred.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep will do as much as any other, add in the bit about the incorrect payment reclaimed so no acknowledgment.

 

Just one thing... this debt from Egg, when was the last payment made... if there were 6 clear years when no payment was made AND you have not admitted the debt in writing at all then it could be stat barred.

 

S.

 

There is 6 clear years. Just (6 years, three months). Only problem is that if it is deemed that the reclaimed payment was an acceptance. How would that sit?

 

I clearly stated, as you can see from my initial post, that the payment was made under duress and it has been successfully reclaimed so would SB still be an option?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is 6 clear years. Just (6 years, three months). Only problem is that if it is deemed that the reclaimed payment was an acceptance. How would that sit?

 

I clearly stated, as you can see from my initial post, that the payment was made under duress and it has been successfully reclaimed so would SB still be an option?

 

Was it 6 years before that payment was made? If not then I think you have restarted the clock and despite you getting the money back I think it would be difficult to prove you havent acknowledged the account/debt in some way.

 

S.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it 6 years before that payment was made? If not then I think you have restarted the clock and despite you getting the money back I think it would be difficult to prove you havent acknowledged the account/debt in some way.

 

S.

 

Yeah, it would just be inside the 6 years. On the phone at the time I did CLEARLY state that I did not acknowledge the debt and that was a caveat to the payment. I have previously (in the request) asked for audio copies of the conversation, which they have yet to provide.

 

I've added quite a long part to the letter detailing that no debt was acknowledged and 'payment' was under duress and base don their threatening behaviour. I am also referencing the fact that they were given numerous chances to justify the debt and payment, stating that since the amount has been refunded in full, in accordance with the terms of the Visa scheme, no payment has actually been made.

 

That bit might not hold up but it is certain worth a shot as they effectively refused to defend the requests of my bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Letter all done, runs to three pages and hopefully gives them very little room to manoeuvre given the all the above.

 

Thanks for your help, folks. Keep your fingers crossed for me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update for you all...

 

Received a letter yesterday from CQ stating that they sent the CCA already, along with T+Cs, DOA and statements. I received the statements and a current set of Egg T+Cs but not the rest.

 

Interestingly enough, however, they state that "Regarding statute barred, we have referred to our client and waiting for their response" (their poor English, not mine).

 

It looks like CQ have actually accepted that the reclaimed payment of £200 is considered as never being made int he first place. If this is the case then I'm 99% sure that they will have to find it as SB.

 

Keep those fingers crossed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update for you all...

 

Received a letter yesterday from CQ stating that they sent the CCA already, along with T+Cs, DOA and statements. I received the statements and a current set of Egg T+Cs but not the rest.

 

Interestingly enough, however, they state that "Regarding statute barred, we have referred to our client and waiting for their response" (their poor English, not mine).

 

It looks like CQ have actually accepted that the reclaimed payment of £200 is considered as never being made int he first place. If this is the case then I'm 99% sure that they will have to find it as SB.

 

Keep those fingers crossed!

 

fingers and toes mate :-D :-D

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi folks,

 

Quick question - it has now been almost 7 weeks since I had the 'on hold for 4 weeks while we investigate the SB' letter and I have heard nothing.

 

Are they likely to write and say whether or not they accept it is SB or just leave me alone? Is it too soon to chalk this up as a win?

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

 

Quick question - it has now been almost 7 weeks since I had the 'on hold for 4 weeks while we investigate the SB' letter and I have heard nothing.

 

Are they likely to write and say whether or not they accept it is SB or just leave me alone? Is it too soon to chalk this up as a win?

 

Thanks!

 

I'd be surprised if they waste a stamp if they cant claim on it :-D

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if they waste a stamp if they cant claim on it :-D

 

S.

 

That's what I'm hoping but I hate the not knowing.

 

If they do accept it is SB what happens then? Nothing? Do they fly it back to Egg who then go 'WTF are we supposed to do with this?'?

 

Sorry for all the questions - just wondering if I can finally say they have buggered off. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'm hoping but I hate the not knowing.

 

If they do accept it is SB what happens then? Nothing? Do they fly it back to Egg who then go 'WTF are we supposed to do with this?'?

 

Sorry for all the questions - just wondering if I can finally say they have buggered off. :)

 

If its stat barred, then the debt exists but they cant enforce it through the courts.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...