United Untilities / 1st Credit Issue

[sequenci]

Some great advice so far on here!

 

What amounts to 'acknowledgement' is a question of fact to be decided in each situation.

 

Having said that, an acknowledgement needs to be clear. A dispute is not reqarded in law as an acknowledgement.

[PGH7447]

I take it the case manager was from the utility company and not1st crud, in which case I would be very suprised if they understood the law regarding statute barred, so tell em to put this is writing thn complain to the oft and ofgen

[babybear39]

Subscribing...

[Nairyhuts]

Pay 1stcredit nothing,challenge them to provide Notice Of Assignment and any documentation they hold.They are bullies and very rarely provide the requested docs.Admit to nothing and certainly do not pay them a penny.I have been disputing a so called debt with them now for 5 years and not once have they provided the correct documents

[The Debt Star]

Anything that is past 6 years is now SB, so cannot be resurrected, EVER. So what ever they are trying to say is owed past September 2004, is dead and buried, tough cheddar bye bye.

 

 

So whatever that bill is for, and however it is made up, IS statute barred.

 

BUT can they bo11ocks up her credit file? I think they can...but may be wrong.

[Bazooka Boo]

They often do leave adverse data on CRF's, however without the correct paperwork, ie. a CCA, they shouldn't as it is a breach of the DPA, and the ICO would be very happy to hear of such!

[The Debt Star]

in theory yeah, but the ico's about as useful as used bog rol

[sillygirl1]

If they do leve a 'false trail' on her credit file it will drop off due to statute barring, no matter what date they put the default at, statute barring does not work from the date of default but from the date of the last payment, if this was some time in 2001 then it is well and truly STATUTE BARRED.

 

Have you tried sending the council tax records from when she moved out to prove she wasn't liable... I had to do this as Thames Water tired to bill me for four years from when I moved out my old address. They were NOT amused to find out they were chasing the wrong person.

[Bigdebtor]

In any case it's for a Utility Bill not chase dup within the first year - so not collectable long before SB kicks in under the Utility Billing Code.

 

BD

[The Debt Star]

In any case it's for a Utility Bill not chase dup within the first year - so not collectable long before SB kicks in under the Utility Billing Code.

 

BD

 

hi. can you clarify that please?

[Bazooka Boo]

The Billing Code is for energy only, so doesn't apply in this case.

[Bigdebtor]

I stand corrected - thought it applied to all Utilities.

 

In any case it's clear the bill is mainly for a period long after the daughter moved house. If 1st crud won't clarify exactly what proportion applies for her period of occupancy and won't back off ove rthe rest then perhaps its time ot see if either OFWAT or FOS can help?

 

BD

[Bazooka Boo]

Agreed BD, Ofwat should intervene in this I feel...

[The Debt Star]

how useful are Ofwat? Most organisations beginniing "Of---" are pretty useless imo

[Bazooka Boo]

If nothing else, it will be added to the pile for future reference..... give it a go..

[Bigdebtor]

It will also cost 1st crud or UU a referral fee - so they might look a bit closer at settling if this is threatened.

 

I agree most such public bodies are pretty uselss - but the do at least cost the company harassing real money and a bit of hassle - and MIGHT just get a result.

 

BD

[mcjohnson]

Huff and Puff - I think there is a clear difference between disputing the existence that you have a debt at all, and disputing an amount that you owe. If you contact a creditor and state that you don't believe you owe them £200, but that you do owe them £50 then - by default - you've acknowledged that you have a debt with that organisation. It's very different to contacting a creditor and saying "I don't believe I owe you anything".

[Bigdebtor]

I thought it was accepted there may be a small debt outstanding from the partner's time in the property - and the OP is willing to pay that - but no more?

[Bazooka Boo]

Huff and Puff - I think there is a clear difference between disputing the existence that you have a debt at all, and disputing an amount that you owe. If you contact a creditor and state that you don't believe you owe them £200, but that you do owe them £50 then - by default - you've acknowledged that you have a debt with that organisation. It's very different to contacting a creditor and saying "I don't believe I owe you anything".

 

And your point is??

How does your difference of opinion help the OP? Black isn't white if it's grey.....as clear as mud! Twice in two days...

[Huff&Puff]

Apparently my comments were "unhelpful" anyway. So it's probably best to ignore anything I post

 

I can't remember what I said anyway, so a bit of communication would have been nice, if I'm going to get my posts edited without a clue as to why

[Bazooka Boo]

It was here HP http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?273784-Attacked-by-1st-Credit&p=3156155&viewfull=1#post3156155

 

I do believe that this 'member' along with another are merely here to attempt to muddy the waters!

[Bigdebtor]

BB

 

I agree. Let's get back to basics.

1. It looks as if the Billing Code can't help as it's not for energy - thanlks to BB for calrifying this point.

2. It looks as if the bill should now be SB in any case.

3. There may be a small debt "morally" if not legally still owed by the OP's partner to UU.

4. ONLY IF UU and 1st crud play ball and give the EXACT amount owed for the exact time the partner was there - and PROVE it - should this be paid now. Any MORAL obligation is negated by the attitude and tactics of this pair trying to force the OP and partner to pay far more than they used whilst actually in residence. This should be seen as extortion and the OC and DCA both now deserve to be taken to account for this - a sthey won't acknowledge this and back off gracefully.

5. Getting FOS and/or OFWAT involved might not get a result - but it WILL cost UU and/or 1st crud real money and hassle to address the complaint.

6. It's my understanding that getting OFWAT or FOS involved will not only cost them money - but I also believe they CANNOT take any legal action (even if doomed to lose) while it's under investigation by OFWAT or FOS.

 

Hope this helps?

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

Any more news?

[jimbo45]

Hi there

 

ALWAYS demand a PROVE IT statement from a DCA to verify that the bill is yours.

 

After that try and get the LEGAL AUTHORITY that the DCA actually has the power to COLLECT the debt in the first place.

 

Anybody can say XXX has asked me to collect YYY on their behalf -- even if they enclose the original bill they will probably be stymied by this request.

 

If they don't give you the LEGAL AUTHORITY they actually have to collect the debt then you don't have to deal with it any more until the SEND IT. If you get any more threatograms BEFORE they have satisfied the legal request then Harrassment etc notices are in order.

 

After all in theory what's to stop me sending say to say DCA "SCOTCALL" a note from "Sid under the Railway arches" that says You OWE ME xxx GBP.

 

Make sure that every request you ever get from a DCA has 100% legal correctness. Remember the days of Railways "Working to rule" -- if the rule book was 100% applied no trains would ever move --I think even these days a TGV / High speed train technically needs to have a red Oil Lamp hanging on the back of the engine / last carriage. Of course they don't actually have them anymore but legally they might still be required.

 

Also if a request is passed to another DCA go through the same routine. DCA will get fed up so DCA B (lower inj the food chain) will probably send increasingly ominous threatograms such as "Doorstep Collection" and the like.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[The Debt Star]

Good 'un Jimbo. I may well print that post out and save it as a keeper for future ref.