Buchanan Clark + Wells

[mau_juaquez]

Hello good people,

 

I have recently been getting letters from Buchanan Clark and wells and sometimes Lowell regarding a debt back in 1998.

 

They are telling me they can offer a very good deal etc etc so I ignored the letter thinking it is statute barred.

 

As there was a CCJ registered for this debt I have since been reading that the statute barred thing is incorrect and they may have a case (assumming they have the right to collect etc!)

 

I only ask as today they contacted me on our landline which I dont know how they got considering its in my girlfriends name! They phoned me and asked if it was me then asked for me to confirm my address, I sternly said no, you phoned me to which they said its standard practise. I gave the bloke loads of chew before he said this phonecall is not going anywhere so I said 'nope do one will yer'

 

Is it true that statute barred does not apply to CCJ debts, this has since been removed from my credit file!

 

I dont exect them to call anymore but I would imagine a letter turning up in the next few days.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated,

 

Thanks

 

MJ

[harrassed senior]

Statute Barred ie. no collection after 6 (5 in Scotland) does not apply to a CCJ. As I understand it, the CCJ stays on the Registry Trust register for 6 years and it does then 'fall off' that Register and your CRA files, however, there is no statute barred status for a CCJ.

 

What is the case however, is that only the person who originally got the CCJ has the right to apply for payments after 6 years, and they would have to go before a Court to state why they have not carried out these 'debt chasing' activities during the previous 6 years or however long since the CCJ was granted. It is very rare for a judge to grant them leave to persue.

 

So this can be the basis of your response.

 

You can also send them this:

 

Re: Harassment by telephone

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXX

Dear Sirs

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.

I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary)

I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.

I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. (**Even if you don‘t yet have recording equipment!!**)

Yours faithfully,

[NAME HERE]

 

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act

“S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he- harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation; falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it; falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.

A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.”

[mau_juaquez]

Hi thanks for your reply. So if BCW didnt apply for the original CCJ there will be no chance of them getting it passed at court. Unfortunately I dont know who applied for the CCJ!

 

Am tempted to ignore and see what happens again, would it be worth sending the SB'd letter too incase they dont know there arse from their elbow?

 

Thanks again

 

MJ

[Guest Cartaphilus]

Am tempted to ignore and see what happens again, would it be worth sending the SB'd letter too incase they dont know there arse from their elbow?

 

It's BCW, no different to any other DCA in that regard.

[harrassed senior]

Just a quick thought, do BCW actually know their is a CCJ on this account, as sometimes these files get passed around so much that no one actually reallises that there is a CCJ in existence. If you are not sure that they know, best to keep quiet about it for now.

 

You could send the SB letter if you are sure that there has been no acknowledgement or payments on the debt for over 6 years.

[Bazooka Boo]

So what was the original debt?

 

Why don't you know who was granted the CCJ?

I take it that this was awarded by default then? I.E you didn't attend court and defend it? How long ago was the CCJ awarded?

[mau_juaquez]

Thanks for your replies.

 

The CCJ was granted around 1998 and yes it was awarded by default as I didnt attend court or reply to the court papers. I just buried my head in the sand at the time as I was a student. I moved around a lot at the time so thats probably why they never found me.

 

It was a bank debt but not sure which DCA filed for the CCJ unfortunately.

[Guest Cartaphilus]

The CCJ was granted around 1998 and yes it was awarded by default as I didnt attend court or reply to the court papers. I just buried my head in the sand at the time as I was a student. I moved around a lot at the time so thats probably why they never found me.

 

Okay, so you already know it's been awarded by default and by 'a' court. So, wouldn't the court - as a matter of standard legal record/practice ie they don't normally award CCJ's from anonymous people to my knowledge and would require proof from said parties ie a name - have details of whom the DCA was?

 

As there was a CCJ registered for this debt I have since been reading that the statute barred thing is incorrect and they may have a case (assumming they have the right to collect etc!)

 

How did you find out there was a CCJ on this account and where was it registered? Or has BCW or Lowells told you there was one registered?

 

Can you actually post what letters you've received from either of them as I think that would perhaps be helpful here.

[mau_juaquez]

Thanks Cartaphilus, I am just assumming the ccj was awarded as I recieved the paperwork.

 

None of the communication from Lowell or BCW indicate they no about this it is as if they are phishing for info so I am just trying to pre-empt their next move. I have chucked out all their recent correspondence as I thought they were being sly.

 

After yesterdays phone call (not sure how they got my girlfriends number!!) I am starting to think they may be chasing me with a legitamate reason as apposed to being chancers. If I get any future letters from them I will post them on here.

[Guest Cartaphilus]

the ccj was awarded as I recieved the paperwork.

 

Right, so you have the paperwork. Would it not say on there who the DCA was?

[Guest Cartaphilus]

Right, well anyway, I am not an expert in anything so really I have nothing constructive to contribute to anything here. I wish you well in your endeavours with these people.

[mau_juaquez]

Right, so you have the paperwork. Would it not say on there who the DCA was?

 

No I dont have the paperwork as this was back in 1997/ 1998

 

I think I have confused people a bit, so here goes to clarify the issue:

 

I had a student account back in 1997 that I never kept up with payments hence DCA's chasing me,

 

I really cant remember who they were as I rarely read any of the letters,

I was 18, stupid and nieave.

 

I do remember recieving court paperwork but never responded as I was scared so when I moved all letters were thrown out,

 

I can only assume that a ccj was granted.

 

I cant remember that far back as to who was collecting the debt,,

I moved regularly for a few years as students do to and never heard anything.

I lived in my last place for 5 yrs and never heard from anybody then when I move in with the mrs all of a sudden lowell and bcw begin contacting me via letter

saying they have a good deal etc 50% settlemets, that kind of thing.

 

I assumed the debt was stat barred so binned their letters.

 

Yesterday I receive a phone call from BCW asking for me and then they ask me to confirm my details

so I said you called me so I am not telling you nowt kind of stuff.

They eventually realised that I wasnt giving any info out over the phone and hung up.

 

I have since found out that a ccj debt doesnt become stat barred.

 

I hope that clarifies the issue.

 

I have no paperwork from the CCJ as it was chucked out as were recent communications.

Next letter i get (probably Monday now) I will scan in and post.

 

From the info you good people have provided it seems that lowell or BCW can only chase me if they were the original DCA

that had the ccj granted and they have a valid reason on why they havent chased me sooner.

The fact that I was at my last property for 5 years (on the electoral role) must show some negligence on their behalf.

 

I guess in a nutshell should I be worried or should I just sit tight and carry on filing their letters under 'B' for 'Bothered'?

 

Thanks again and apologies if I have confused things, stress does wonderful things to your typing!!!

 

MJ

[Guest Cartaphilus]

(removed by me)

Edited August 14, 2010 by Cartaphilus

[harrassed senior]

Send BCW the Statute barred letter. There is zero chance that anyone could resurrect this CCJ now. If you want to wait for their letter, and then reply with the SB. No need to mention the CCJ or any previous information. It is far too late for anyone to be chasing now.

[mau_juaquez]

Thanks Harrassed Senior,

 

I will wait for their letter and send them the SB letter, recorded and unsigned! If this is dodgy practise I cant believe they are allowed to get away with it, seems like a never ending battle!!

 

Thanks again!

[harrassed senior]

You're welcome. As you say, very dodgy practices, but, I am afraid a sign of the times, they are chasing anything that might possibly bear fruit, my sister received a letter at the beginning of this week that put her in hospital, over a debt that has been SB since 2001!

[mau_juaquez]

I am sorry to hear that , I hope she is ok and the DCA has been suitably sent packing!!!

[Bazooka Boo]

Correct a CCJ debt does not become SB, HOWEVER!! The owners of the CCJ would have to go back to court and explain to the Judge why they didn't chase this CCJ for so long (12/13 years!) and then only IF the judge decides, can he then re-instate the CCJ and you become liable for it, however they need to have a very good case as to why they couldn't enforce this for over a decade.

 

As your SL was before 98 it is bound by the limitations act.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/StudentFinance/RepayingStudentLoansCoursesStartingBefore1998/index.htm

 

Keep everything in writing from now on, don't talk to the parasites over the phone.

[harrassed senior]

I am sorry to hear that , I hope she is ok and the DCA has been suitably sent packing!!!

 

She is home now, and I have her permission to open her mail from now, have waited on the response because I wanted to send a 'reasoned' and not a 'Mr Angry' response!! It has been done today with copies of their letter sent to everyone I could think of up to and including the PM (x2)!!