Asset Recoveries UK hassling re mortgage shortfall from 2000- ** Statute barred ** :)

[irate-wife]

Thanks for that spamheed. I cant afford legal advise as my wage exceeds the amount for legal aid by a few measley pounds and I am just managing to make ends meet, and as far as I am aware I can use any means I desire to get my information from.

[ODC]

You do not need to spend money on legal advice. The simple truth is that the DCA are telling downright lies and trying to scare you into making a payment of a STATUTE BARRED DEBT. The law is very clear. We are right and they are totally wrong. What they are telling you is wrong and by making it appear otherwise THEY are committing an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

Look at it logically. If what this company was saying was true every lowlife DCA would sell on all debts once they had them for 5 yrs 11 months and then another bunch of muppets could claim that they had another 6 years to enforce them until in another 5 yrs 11 months they sold it on again. Total and utter bollocks. The six years start when the debt goes into default which is generally 1 month after the last payment or written acknowledgement

 

You really need to report these losers to ALL the regulatory bodies and your MP. They are not fit to hold a TV licence let alone a Consumer Credit Licence.

Edited March 13, 2010 by ODC

[irate-wife]

Look at it logically. If what this company was saying was true every lowlife DCA would sell on all debts once they had them for 5 yrs 11 months and then another bunch of muppets could claim that they had another 6 years to enforce them until in another 5 yrs 11 months they sold it on again. Total and utter bollocks. The six years start when the debt goes into default which is generally 1 month after the last payment or written acknowledgement

 

You really need to report these losers to ALL the regulatory bodies and your MP. They are not fit to hold a TV licence let alone a Consumer Credit Licence.

 

 

Hi ODC, It is 12 years for a mortgage before it becomes statute barred. There are a few things I have noticed on my letters recieved which do not correspond. ie dates on one letter i got dont match dates on other letters. They say its not statute barred until May 2011 on one letter, then on another it says June 2011. Then on my most recent one it says I left the property in 1998. well if i left the property in 1998 that will be when the last payment was made as I was in reciept of benefits. Can anyone tell me about this cos I have just remembered that when my husband and I split up I was on benefits and was getting the interest paid by DHSS. they wouldnt pay mortgage, only interest. That was for 6 months as they told me that they would only pay it for that length of time. Then my children and I moved out into a friends house until we got sorted with somewhere to live. If it was 1998 surely it is just about statute barred. They say in there letter i moved out in 1998 but no date.

They also say they sent me mortgage history etc, THEY DID NOT.

They also say they sent solicitor letters dated april 2008, THEY DID NOT.

They also say they have enclosed this letter but THEY HAVE NOT.

[spamheed]

You do not need to spend money on legal advice. The simple truth is that the DCA are telling downright lies and trying to scare you into making a payment of a STATUTE BARRED DEBT. The law is very clear. We are right and they are totally wrong. What they are telling you is wrong and by making it appear otherwise THEY are committing an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

Look at it logically. If what this company was saying was true every lowlife DCA would sell on all debts once they had them for 5 yrs 11 months and then another bunch of muppets could claim that they had another 6 years to enforce them until in another 5 yrs 11 months they sold it on again. Total and utter bollocks. The six years start when the debt goes into default which is generally 1 month after the last payment or written acknowledgement

 

You really need to report these losers to ALL the regulatory bodies and your MP. They are not fit to hold a TV licence let alone a Consumer Credit Licence.

 

 

Absolutely spot on and agree fully, they have not got a leg to stand on, I have seen creditors act when they have a 100% case and rest assured they wouldn't be mucking about trying to pick holes in the advice received from a forum if they had a chance.

 

Companies such as ARUK rely on several things to allow them to maximise their income;

 

• Your own ignorance of the law, this can be and is being addressed not by the advice you're receiving, but by the reading you're doing, by the statutes you're reading etc and so forth. All of the advice you have received is offered freely by people who have no vested interest and is supported by statute.
  
• their ability to cause you fear and make you worried about what they can do to you, we have been raised to believe that Solicitors and the like have special powers, they don't, they just know which forms to fill in
  
• They love to confuse you, they will make you believe that they can turn your world upside down and remove all of your possessions, they cant do this at all, yet they will continue to state this and that, they will try to get you into convoluted arguments which have nothing to do with anything (just like in their letters) all of which is designed to overload you into panicking and making a payment.
  

From the information given debt is statute barred and is unenforceable, if this is not the case, then it is up to them to prove that it isn't by showing that you have acknowledged the debt within a period of six years from the date the debt would have defaulted (which may not be the actual date of default)

 

As ODC says, complain about all of this and then follow up the complaints. Push it home and get these "people" off your back, then you and yours can get on with your lives.

[spamheed]

Then on my most recent one it says I left the property in 1998. well if i left the property in 1998 that will be when the last payment was made

 

 

They also say they sent me mortgage history etc, THEY DID NOT. They also say they sent solicitor letters dated april 2008, THEY DID NOT.

They also say they have enclosed this letter but THEY HAVE NOT.

 

This is all just smoke and mirrors, nothing else, you have requested a SAR from them, this would show all of the communications they are alleged to have provided you with, since it obviously wont, then maybe this is why they are so reluctant to fulfill your SAR.

 

The original advice stands, you have made requests and they have failed to do this or refused, this is no longer your problem. complain to everyone about all of this. you don't need legal aid or a solicitor, you can go through Trading Standards, Information Commissioners, Financial Services Authority and a lot more, all for free.

 

If they won't talk to you, then maybe they will prefer to answer to the people who allow them to trade.

 

And don't get me started about the legality of a UK consumer debt being enforced by a company based in Luxembourg.

 

 

NOTHING HAS CHANGED - still a bunch of chancers on the make

[irate-wife]

too small to read

Edited March 13, 2010 by irate-wife
cant read

[spamheed]

too small IW

[ODC]

 

Hi ODC, It is 12 years for a mortgage before it becomes statute barred. .

 

 

I am aware that a mortgage debt is not Statute Barred for 12 years. I was just giving an example of how ridiculous their theory sounds. According to them a debt could technically never become Statute Barred

[PriorityOne]

No worries IW.

 

If they had the info you've asked for.... why not just send it to you? If they were confident that they were abiding by the law, then why not quote it to you?

 

Stat-barred status starts from the date of default and not the date of sale.... This should be fairly easy to esablish through a SAR to the original creditor, if it becomes necessary. I don't think it's necessary for now though... ARUK are just running out of toys to chuck around... They expected this to be an easy fast buck and it's not...

Edited March 13, 2010 by PriorityOne

[irate-wife]

I got the letters on my pc but when i try to put them up they coming out too small to read :?

[irate-wife]

Please bear with me, I cant get letter up so I am going to type it in, I am not a quick typer so it might take a while.

[irate-wife]

From aruk

 

I acknowledge our receipt on the 23rd february, of your letter dated 17th February 2010 marked "complaint", which has been passed to me for my attention. I note that you now state "I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or to any company or "client" who you claim to represent".

 

I will deal with your comments as they appear on your letter. On 16th January 2008, in accordance with section 136 of the law property act 1925, you were given formal notice of the legal assignment of the outstanding debt to mortgage trust ltd to our client, Phoenix Recoveries (UK) limited s.a.r.l. I enclose a copy of that letter. On 22nd April 2008 you were sent a letter from our solicitors, Lawsmiths, referring to the outstanding debt and I also enclose a copy of their letter.

 

On 18th january of this year you returned a call to you from your account manager xxxxxxx xxxxxxx and spoke to her. During that conversation you confirmed that you would be taking advice in the matter before agreeing to any payment. You said that the reason why you had never got into negotiations with regard to paying the debt was because the lender had sold the house for peanuts, when it was worth a lot more. On 26th january your account manager phoned your home and spoke to xxxx possibly your husband. you then sent us a letter dated 26th january 2010 alleging the debt was statute barred and suggesting that our client was no longer able to take any court action against you to recover the alleged amount claimed. Although your letter did not dispute the debt you then alleged it was statute barred. I then sent you a letter dated 29th january in reply to your letter whilst clearly setting out that the debt was not statute barred and explained why not.

You then sent a letter dated 30th January in response to our letter of the 29th january. We then sent you a letter dated 2nd February 2010 in response to your letter. You then sent us a letter dated the 3rd February 2010 referring to the council of mortgage lenders voluntary policy of the 11th february 2000 and the financial services authority ' The mortgage conduct of busiiness rules@ in 2004. We then sent you a letter dated 5th february 2010 in response to your letter. The Mortgage Transaction History report enclosed with our letter to you on 29th january, is the report recieved by our client from the mortgage trust. this shows all of the transactions credits and debits applied or deducted from the mortgage account both prior to and following the repossession and the outstanding mortgage shortfall balance of £xxxxxxx.

We have not, therefore, failed to establish our clients legal right to persue you in respect of the payment of your outstanding liability to our client. We have clearly and at length responded to all of your letters which appear to have been copied from the many websites that are now freely available on the internet. We note that your latest letter of complaint appears to be a copy of a letter on a blog from the consumer action group website.

As we have consistently pointed out to you, including the letter from our solicitors that the outstanding debt is still within limitation until 30th june 2011, our client is entitled to issue court proceedings against you, in respect of its recovery. Accordingly, we have not committed any breach, as you now allege, of the consumer protection in the unfair trading regulations 2008 of the office of fair trading guidance on debt collection. We have made no threats to you but have simply been outlining our clients legal right to collect the outstanding debt through court proceedings.

You also state that we have been unable to furnish you with requested documentation under your subject access request. We have no record on file of recieving any such S.A.R.N. request from you. Accordingly, please let me have a copy of your formal request that you allege you have sent us.

I note you do not wish us to arrange for a representative to visit your home. This is another indication of your desire not to deal with a clear and unsatisfied liability. It seems that you are now intent on raising every obstacle to avoid paying your just liabilities, using standard letters from the internet which do not relate to your circumstances.

As already stated, our client has taken a legal assignment of the outstanding debt, together with all of the relevant documentation appertaining to it. Their rights are beyond doubt and the point that you make shows a lack of understanding of your legal position. Your allegation that your agreement to that assignment was required by law is wrong and our client has not breached the datd protection act 1988, in that respect. Your point about section 10 of the act is also wrong. We are entitled to process data by virtue of the provisions of schedule 2 of the act.

Many of the points that you make have no basis in law and are just copied from an internet blog. We suggest that you seek legal advice about your position. The practice direction-pre action protocol forming part of the civil procedure rules recommends various sources for advice and we attach a list of organisations that provide advice. They are likely to be more helpful to you than an internet blog and we suggest that it would be helpful for you to consult one of the organisations reffered to. If we do not hear from you with any proposals for settlement or payment proposals within 21 days our client will ask us to refer the matter to solicitors to consider legal action against you.

[irate-wife]

On 16th January 2008, in accordance with section 136 of the law property act 1925, you were given formal notice of the legal assignment of the outstanding debt to mortgage trust ltd to our client, Phoenix Recoveries (UK) limited s.a.r.l. I enclose a copy of that letter. On 22nd April 2008 you were sent a letter from our solicitors, Lawsmiths, referring to the outstanding debt and I also enclose a copy of their letter.

 

Never recieved this and nothing enclosed with the letter.

 

On 26th january your account manager phoned your home and spoke to possibly your husband.

 

In reply to this the letter forgets to state the threats made to my husband over the telephone. And she also discussed the account with him and didnt even know who he was. For all she knew she could of had a wrong number and been speaking to my neighbours whom she threatened to contact. Also this has nothing to do with him, its not his debt. Surely this is illegal is it not.

 

you then sent us a letter dated 26th january 2010 alleging the debt was statute barred

 

The national debtline told me it was and to send the letter.

 

Mortgage Transaction History report enclosed with our letter to you on 29th january, is the report recieved by our client from the mortgage trust. this shows all of the transactions credits and debits applied or deducted from the mortgage account both prior to and following the repossession and the outstanding mortgage shortfall balance of £xxxxxxx.

 

This was not enclosed.

 

As we have consistently pointed out to you, including the letter from our solicitors that the outstanding debt is still within limitation until 30th june 2011

 

I never recieved this.

Edited March 13, 2010 by irate-wife
added information

[irate-wife]

On a letter dated 5th feb 2010 it states i left the property in 1998. i have this letter and all other letters I have recieved from this company on my pc but its showing on thread as very small and unreadable.

[ODC]

Dear Cretins

 

I refer to your letter dated xxxx

 

I am entitled to seek legal advice wheresoever I wish including the internet. You have failed to prove that a notice of assignment was served on me in accordance with S136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

Your interpretation S 20 of the Limitation Act 1980 is in my opinion wrong and your attempts to try to CONvince me otherwise are im my opinion a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Your attempts to mislead me about my legal rights and the legal status of the alleged debt are not only a breach of these regulations but also contrary to the OFT Guidelines on the collection of debt. The true position, according to the courts, is that the cause of action arises once there is a failure to make the payments due under the mortgage and the 12 years starts from then. Of course an alleged debt may still exist but is unenforceable through the courts.

 

I nothe the following sentence from your letter

On 26th january your account manager phoned your home and spoke to xxxx possibly your husband.

This is a clear breach of Data Protection Legislation if you account manager discussed this matter with someone as to whose identity they were uncertain.

 

Please be advised that not only have I used the internet but have also sought legal advice from the sources mentioned in the Civil Procedure Rules and have not changed my opinion that the matter is in fact Statute Barred.

 

yours etc

[PriorityOne]

I don't think I've ever come across anyone so hacked off about where you're getting your advice from...

 

I will nitpick their letters later and get back to you...

[ODC]

SGH Law - Practice Areas - Services to Lenders - Articles#

 

 

This was not written on an internet blog but in fact is a solicitors website. I did not want to publish the whole article but suggest you read Scottish Equitable plc -v- Thompson (2003) 7 EG 137 (CS) CA

[spamheed]

IW and ARUK for when your logon, this simply proves that they haven't a leg to stand on, where in all of this is the proof of assignment? they're worse than Cabot with their "We can confirm...." nobody asked for confirmation, all that is asked for is PROOF, paperwork and then more proof

 

As it stands, ARUK are nothing more than a fat lad demanding money with threats

[PriorityOne]

A rough draft of a suggested reply..... comments are welcome.

 

Dear xxxxx

 

Your Ref xxxxx

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or to any company you claim to represent.

 

Your “client” was issued with a SAR on xx/xx/xx and to date, your “client” has failed to comply with that request. Your company was also issued with a SAR on xx/xx/xx and the information received to date is incomplete at best.

 

I have noted your comment about not receiving a SAR, but since you’ve referred to the opening line in that SAR in your most recent letter, this confirms to me that you have indeed received it, notwithstanding the recorded delivery receipt that also confirms this. I therefore refer you back to the content of this request and my most recent correspondence, suggest you re-read both and remind you that you now have xx days within which to comply. Until such times as you find yourselves able to comply with my legal request for information and include evidence to substantiate your claim against a statute-barred debt, I maintain my position that the account is indeed statute-barred as per The Limitation Act, 1980 and the legal advice I have been given.

 

I now respectfully suggest that you re-acquaint yourself with the law in this context. Once you have done so, I’d be grateful for the precise point of law you refer to from the mysterious firm of solicitors that you claim to have included correspondence from, instead of dubious explanations based upon your personal opinion of what you would like the law to be, minus any correspondence from any solicitors at all.

 

I have also noted your comment about someone from your company speaking to someone at my home; “possibly” my husband. Your failure to comply with data protection on this occasion, together with your written confirmation of this failure, has been duly noted.

 

In addition, who, where and how I obtain my legal advice is no concern of yours. In fact, I am somewhat bemused by numerous comments about internet blogs and repeated accusations of liability to your “client”. For your information, I do not want a representative of your company to visit me on my doorstep because that is my choice and not, as you state, “another indication of your desire not to deal with a clear and unsatisfied liability” and/or an intent to “raising every obstacle to avoid paying your just liabilities”.

 

I once again refer you to my Notice under s.10 of the Data Protection Act, 1998 which you received in my letter of xx/xx/xx which you’ve since acknowledged, yet claim not to have received. Should you or your “client” now choose to escalate this matter with solicitors, please be advised that any action you may take will be vigorously defended and treated as both unlawful and vexatious.

 

If this is to be your only and/or final response to my complaint, I would now be grateful for your written confirmation. In any event, your letters and the comments therein have now been copied and forwarded to the relevant authorities for their consideration.

 

Yours faithfully,

[irate-wife]

Thank you P1 for that, I will leave it until monday before i do it, just in case anything else needs to be added. Not that I doubt your letter its just in case I or any of the others helping think something is missing.

[spamheed]

As I keep on stating, NOTHING HAS CHANGED from the very beginning of this thread - they haven't done a thing to resolve anythingand are trying to confuse you into accepting liability and making a payment.

 

The onus is still on them to prove both their own status and that of the debt they allege that you owe.

 

Until they have done this, there is nothing else to say, even a judge would want need this clarified given the timescales involved

[irate-wife]

thanks spamheed, your help and P1's and everyone else helping me is very much appreciated.

oh by the way, my kids are taking me out tonight as a mothers day gift, not going to be too far away from you, going to newb club for a drink, maybe you could call in and i buy you a very well deserved drink

My shower is calling, see you all later. thanks again. x

[citizenB]

Thank you P1 for that, I will leave it until monday before i do it, just in case anything else needs to be added. Not that I doubt your letter its just in case I or any of the others helping think something is missing.

 

The letter is perfect and says it all.

[spamheed]

Anything further happening on this?

[firstship]

IW.........You have received a raft of good advice and all very valid,I still go back to the advice given to me by other Cagers as I am in the same situation as yourself with ARUK,which was why would you take ARUKs word that they represent Phoenix Recoveries as Spamheed states you need PROOF in the first instance from Phoenix that they have authorised ARUK to represent them.I have dug my heels in on this one issue along with an SAR,no reply of any nature.......................FS