Roxburghe/Hutchison 3g Debt Collection - Confused!!!

[patrickq1]

I know mines not hutchinson 3g but I've recieved 3 phone calls today from roxburghe, they won't say what sort of company they are, they wonlt say who their acting on behalf of, so I won't give them my personal details. Not a clue what's going on!

 

Welcome to Roxburghe - Fresh approach, better results is their web address.

report rox immediately to trading standards demanding money with menaces and harrassment...dont hold back it is the only way to stop rox in there tracks...do not engage in any phone calls with them report them for any harrassment and also inform them by e mail all contact must be in writing,,this is the scabiest company you could ever have dealing with

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

read all the HFO THREADS this will give you an idea how bad they are

[cbram71]

read all the HFO THREADS this will give you an idea how bad they are

 

 

According to the CCA public entry register Roxburghe and HFO are the same company.

 

If this is the case can a debt collection agency put a default on my credit file and add interest to an original debt from Hutchinson 3g.

 

The agent at roxburge said the debt was brought from hutchinson in 2008 by HFO services who then passed the debt onto roxburghe to which i only received a letter dated 11th Jan 2010.

 

According to hutchinson my last payment was in december 2003 but i can't remember paying it to be honest, so with this in mind does it become statute barred as i have had no letters from anyone since then, again the agent at roxburghe said statute barred does not apply as the default was registered in 2008 and the contract i had with hutchinson finished in july 2004 so according to him statute barred again does not apply.

 

I am confussed by all this, i have paid the debt in full today because i fear further action by these companies.

 

I suppose that's what these companies pray on, i don't know what action to take now as i am sure from the comments here the debt was unenforceable?

[patrickq1]

if the last payment was in 2003 then yes the debt is statute barred...next time they write to you remind them of the fact that this is a statute bard debt..therefore cannot be collected secondly if they wish to persue this case further you are more than willing to see them in the courtroom you will also require the actual deed of assignment no further contact shall therefore be entertained until they are prepared to follow through with court procceedings and all costs shall be claimed against the said company

[patrickq1]

do not pay a red cent to these dogs

[kiptower]

if as you said > i have paid the debt in full today because i fear further action by these companies.

 

if they said last payment was 2003 then indeed it is SB

 

can you recall the payment ? if it was a cheque cancel it

 

if its a credit card you made the payment because it was under duress and threats , someone may be along to give you a better way to put it ,

[buzby]

THAT'S pretty much going to leave the OP liable for firther action, on a fresh instance of issuing a cheque fraudulently (knowing it would be cancelled)/ As for CC, the fact any debt may be SB is irrelevant, it doesn't disappear - it is STILL a debt.

 

By making a payment, it creates a whole new game, and the original reasons for the debt become immaterial. A payment was made, then recinded. You you think a court would care? Perhaps, but that isn;t the issue before it. If it is paid, that's an end to the matter. It is also an admission that the debt existed. Duress and Harassment needs to be extreme, not someone giving you a hard time at the door.

 

If you don't wish to pay, DON'T. Anything else isn't a half-way house, but a kick-start to more aggravation.

[kiptower]

if he made the payment under duress or was misled then he can cancel / recall the payment, and if it is statue barred do you really think they are going to take it further

[patrickq1]

stop the payment this is STATUTE BARRED AS LAST PAYMENT WAS IN 2003 DO NOT PAY A CENT contact TRADING STANDARDS and tell them they conned you out of money...you dispute you owe any money end of

[cbram71]

No i made payment via a pre-payment mastercard so they have the money. I felt under so much pressure to pay but from other posts it seems i shoudn't have done.

 

Let me clarify i had an old contract which according to hutchinson was taken out 0n 20/08/2003 ending 02/06/04 odd 10 months not a 12 month duration for starters. According to hutchinson i took the contract out via phones 4 u at the time they were trading under caudwell communications.

 

Now here it gets interesting three say the handset was a motorola a920 but after obtaining a printout from phones 4 u they show an nec e808y, but they also said no name was linked on their computer system.

 

Three claim i made a cash payment via a bank in december 2003 since then i had no communications from three/hfo or anyone until a letter from roxburghe arrived on 11 jan 2010.

 

As in earlier post i am questioning the so called interest charges hfo put on, is this allowed? also i done a check on the cca website and hfo/roxburghe are the same company or associated to each other in some way.

 

Roxburghe claim hfo registered a default, i cannot check experian as i do not have a proper credit card to verify my identity so that proves a bit of an issue.

 

All i am asking is considering the last payment was december 2003 and the contract ended 2nd june 2004 and HFO only passed the debt to roxburghe in 2008 so it's even taken them a year, was i indeed liable to pay or not.

 

Roxburghe only took payment for the original sum demanded by three and all charges of interest etc were written off but the fact they still tried to add interest seems to be a grey area in the first place.

 

Simply would i be entitled to obtain my payment back, due to statute barred regardless of when the default in 2008 or my contract end date?

[vjohn82]

The date of default does not matter... there is a lot of confusion over the limitations act. It is only relevant when you either bring it up with the creditor/DCA at the point of their contact with you when the act applies OR as a defence in the courtroom.

 

I would suggest that you contact the Financial Ombudsman over this but I sense that they will see it as you meeting your obligations.

[DonkeyB]

Except that it appears there may have been no obligation - the OP thought the account was settled!

[vjohn82]

Except that it appears there may have been no obligation - the OP thought the account was settled!

 

Indeed

[buzby]

What the OP thought is irrelevant. If they can prove a debt was outstanding (IRRESPECTIVE if the date it was accrued) then it remains a debt. The pre-pay card is a debit card, so no refund will be possible as the payment has been made.

 

The only option left is to put the DCA to proof - by raising a Moneyclaim against them, THEN getting them to prove the original debt existed. However there is no guarantee of success as if they can, this will be a costly mistake.

[Beijing3773]

Yes I informed them I had checked my credit file and it was clear of any reference to Hutchison

 

Hi 180, any news? I am in the same situation as you so I'd like to hear how they responded to you. many thanks

[minimeg]

I have now had two letters from Roxburghe demanding £396.80. I originally called them and all they cared about was getting money out of me, offering a "reduced" rate if I paid there and then and not prepared to offer any information. This concerns a Three account from 2003 which I am pretty sure is now statute barred as the phone barely worked, was meant to be repaired by Three who then sent it back without a SIM so I couldn't use it anyway. After constant calls, I still couldn't get my SIM back or use the phone so I wrote to them asking them to cancel since the terms and conditions had been broken as I did not have a working phone and SIM. I never heard back from them and it kind of got forgotten as time went on and I suppose I assumed that was the end of it since they never bothered to reply which is about what their customer service amounted to back then, not sure about now. Anyway Roxburghe claimed that I had a "black mark" on my credit file, which I have since checked, and found out to be a blatant lie since I have an excellent credit record with all accounts showing as being settled. I sent them the Statute Barred template letter back in December and have now received another letter from them stating I have not responded in a satisfactory manner and that they will either send a debt collector round or commence litigation. I am pretty sure this is statute barred as I took the phone out in August 2003 and it barely worked then so I am pretty sure I wrote to them in the October of that year and have heard nothing since. I have moved in the meantime but I did have a mail forward set up so I would have received any correspondence. Do you think I should send them a second letter or ignore them?

[DonkeyB]

You'll enjoy this thread, similar circumstances to you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/157910-hfo-services-scaring-my.html

[vjohn82]

What date has the black mark been put on your file?

[minimeg]

They claimed back in December but there is nothing there according to Expedian. I recently bought a bed on a year's HP, no problems getting credit there.

[hollysmum]

Minimeg - ignore the swine. Do not acknowledge any debt whatsoever in any case, as chances are you are quite correct, and it is now statute barred. You might have read my own post about 3 - their customer service was appalling, and it took me writing a letter of complaint to their UK director to get my case resolved. Because of 3's useless accounts department and customer services, I ended up paying them nearly £100 more than I had to, simply because none of them would acknowledge the letter I'd received from them (yes, their own letter to me!) confirming that my contract would end on 6th January 2007. After Roxburghe sent me their letter telling me that if I didn't cough up £17.60 instantly, they'd send someone round to collect it, and I did go and pay it, and then had a statement from 3 telling me my account was in credit to the tune of £17.60, I vowed never to be so intimidated again, especially as I knew I was in the right, and didn't owe them anything - I'd queried the bill for £17.60, and been told it was a mistake (funny that!), and that my account was clear. Frankly, Roxburghe will try anything to get anyone to pay up, and should not be humoured in any way. You stick to your guns.

[DonkeyB]

It's probably a black mark on the piece of paper they have on their desk, made with a Pentel.

[vjohn82]

It's probably a black mark on the piece of paper they have on their desk, made with a Pentel.

 

Probably the blood from a certain black heart...

 

Ignore it... it's bluster. Simple stature barred letter should suffice; if not then they are breaching the OFT Debt Collection Guidance about contacting statute barred debts.

[DonkeyB]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, these 3 'debts' were sold to HFO some years ago. Due to complaints, and media exposure on Radio 4 and even in the House of Commons, 3 has stated that it will no longer sell accounts to HFO.

 

These accounts are all about to become statute-barred, which explains the surge of activity, and also explains why HFO have passed the caseload to Roxburghe, a sister company.

 

As mentioned, it's always the 'prove it' letter first, just in case it's not actually yet SB. Always send recorded.

[minimeg]

Does anyone have the link for a "prove it" letter template?

 

Thanks for all your advice.

[Beijing3773]

Does anyone have the link for a "prove it" letter template?

 

Thanks for all your advice.

National debtline "Prove it" letter

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Ref: xxxxxxxxxxx

 

You have contacted us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by ourselves.

 

We would point out that we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to The Loan Company.

 

We are familiar with the ‘Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance’ which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

We would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore, ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

We would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above accounts unless you can provide evidence as to our liability for the debt in question.

 

We await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise we will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

 

We look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully