United Untilities / 1st Credit Issue

[OllyC]

Hi all, this is my first post on this forum so a quick hello to you all.

 

My partner has today recieved a letter from a company called '1st Credit' claiming my partner owes United Utilities £1663.50. She hasn't lived at the property for around 5 years 3 months and refutes that she actually owes UU this amount.

 

After reading these forums i believe that the first step in defending against this demand is to send a CCA (a letter requesting infomation/evidence regarding the debt) to the company (1st direct). Do i need to also send this letter to UU? Is this the correct action to take?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Olly.

[fuzzybobble]

Utility bills aren't covered by the CCA. Send the prove it letter and see what they come back with.

[PGH7447]

also contact UU and ask for a statement of accounts and the dates tht this debt refers to

[harrassed senior]

Dear Sir or Madam

 

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

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection, which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/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. AND in not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to Trading Standards and also inform the Office Of Fair Trading of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

[OllyC]

Thanks for the help folks.

 

Ill post the outcome of this on here in case it helps anyone else.

[OllyC]

Turns out most of the 1600 quid was from tenants who have lived in the property the bill relates to failing to pay the subsequent bill after my Partner vacated her previous address.

 

UU have however sent a revised bill claiming (she still disputes this) there is still £724 on the account for which she is liable. The bill is broken down exactly as stated below.....

 

Bill date 8 September 2010

 

Summary

Amount due on bill > sent on 24 Feb 04 £666.05

Outstanding balance brought forward £666.05

New Charges > see below £58.01

Total Charges this year £724.06

Amount now due £724.06

 

New Charges from 1 April 2005 to 8 August 2005

Water

Standing Charge 130 days @ £41.00 per year £14.60

Rateable Value Charge £16.70

Total water charges £31.31

 

Wastewater

Rateable value charge £26.70

Total wastewater charges £26.70

New Charges 1 apr 05 to 8 aug 05 £58.01

 

 

Can she dispute liability for the section of the bill dated 24 feb 04 (obviously theres a small section of it she may be liable for) under the statute of limitations act/bill/regs. She's quite willing to pay the £58.01 and whatever she may be liable for after 8 Sept 04.

 

Where does she stand on this? She went to CAB for advice and they basically said she might be better off just ignoring it rather than making any contact which could be classed as acknowledgement.

 

Any help on this will be greatly appreciated.

[harrassed senior]

I would advise sending an SAR request to UU. Does your partner recall paying a final bill upon leaving the property, on what date? If you do not want to pay the £10 SAR fee then send a letter saying the account is disputed and request a breakdown of the amounts owed up to date of leaving property, plus a history of payments made.

[PGH7447]

and demand their complaints procedure for instructing 1st crud to try and make her liable for all the alledged debt, when they obvioulsy knew it was for different tenants

[OllyC]

She doesnt recall paying a final bill upon leaving the property (im pretty sure she didnt) and UU claim that her last payment was made sometime in 2001.

 

She vacated the property 8th August 2005. She informed UU that she had left on this date after the initial letter demanding £1600 by sending a document stating the date of the termination of her tenancy agreement from the housing association she was with.

 

UU have agreed to freeze the account for 2 weeks. Is there any way i can freeze the account further whilst i wait for the SAR to be processed and sent back?

 

Is it worth simply phoning UU and informing them of the statute of limitations and pointing out that the majority of the debt is from over 6 years ago or would this be classed as acknowledgement?

 

Cheers

 

Olly:???:

[Bazooka Boo]

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.

 

Summary

Amount due on bill > sent on 24 Feb 04 £666.05

Outstanding balance brought forward £666.05

New Charges > see below £58.01

Total Charges this year £724.06

Amount now due £724.06

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

[Bigdebtor]

I thought utility companies couldn't go back MORE THAN 1 YEAR if they hadn't billed already for older consumption?

 

Am I just getting confused (again!)?

 

BD

[Bazooka Boo]

No that is a good point, a very good point!

Eh Voila!

http://www.energy-retail.org.uk/AbouttheCode.html

 

I still think it is SB..

[Bigdebtor]

Glad to shee my memory shtill worksh shometimesh - now where did I put the glash with my teeth?

 

BD

[OllyC]

So in in all your opinions i should send the statute barred letter to discount all the amount incurred before Sept 04?

 

How do i word letter / approach this bearing in mind she may be liable for the amount inccured after this date?

 

Thanks for all your help

[Bigdebtor]

As I said above, confirme dby Bazooka Bob, it looks as if utility companuies CANNOT chase - even for debts otherwise actually legitimately owing to them - if such debts are more than a year old and they failed to send out appropriaite bills in a timely manner. Does that not mean your partner owes nothing to UU?

 

[EDIT]

 

Given that I would just send out a letter along the lines suggested by Harassed Senior above - but adding a paragraph about utility debts (NB - debts - not bills) over 1 year old. There was more chapter and verse on this given Bazooka Bob's post above.

 

Don't do any more than that - it's not up to you to do 1st credit's job for themin working out who actually owed UU what - you owe them nothing - not even courtesy!

 

Good luck

 

BD

Edited November 23, 2010 by alanfromderby
Please keep posts factual, or cite evidence where giving opinion. Thanks.

[Bazooka Boo]

Yes anything pre 2004, is SB, do you know the exact date in sept 2004?

 

This is the letter to send them for SB debts.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/599-letter-sent-when-debt-is-statute-barred

[Bigdebtor]

I think sending an SB letter is too helpful - and still raises the question of the amount owing from Sep 2004 until Aug 2005.

 

In my view the guidleines on utility debts deal with everything over a year old - even things not SB - which means nothing is owed by your partner to UU. I would send Harassed's letter modified with the point about older unbilled utility debts over 1 year old.

 

I take it you can prove your partner did give them a forwarding address which they ahve not used (via 1st credit?) until recently?

 

BD

[OllyC]

:!:Hello again,

 

After sending the statute barred letter we have today recieved a 2 page letter from a united utillities. I have also spoken to the case manager who is dealing with the dispute. He claims that the original letter my partner sent disputing the amount is classed as 'aknowledgement' of the debt.

 

The original letter contained a document detailing the termination of her tenancy agreement. She also stated in the letter ''as you can see from the enclosed infomation i vacated the property this bill relates to on 08/08/05''

 

Is this classed as aknowledgement or are they trying it on to get the full amount.

 

The case manager i spoke to has also verbally offered to negotiate a payment plan with my partner and keep the matter out of the hands of first credit.

 

 

Not sure what to do now!

[42man]

They can't do diddly squat as far as the statute barred aspect goes....if there is a clear gap of 6 years then it will stay statute barred nothing can unbar it.

[Huff&Puff]

[EDIT]. It is ridiculous to suggest that disputing an alleged debt is the same as acknowledging it - if that were the case it would be impossible to dispute any amount. [EDIT]

Edited November 23, 2010 by alanfromderby
Unhelpful comments removed.

[OllyC]

What should i do now then. The case manager - who was quite polite by the way more or less said thats it and that we have no recourse. He was adamant the first letter she sent (not the statute barred letter) was aknowledgement). Any help is greatly appreciated!

[Bigdebtor]

Two things:

 

1. ANY debt where no payment has been made or debt acknowledged in writing for over 6 years old is SB - END OF!

2. ANY UTILITY debt not chased up for over 1 year CANNOT be collected after that period of time - END OF.

 

What to do now?

 

1. Tell the "polite" case manager to put what he/she said IN WRITING.

2. Once (IF!) you get this proof of their deception then complain to FOS and OFT - They are VERY interested in 1st Credit - their No. 1 bad boy among DCA's (quite a feat- considering the competition for this title!).

3. Complain to OfGEM that you're being chased for a very old (and disputed) utility bill - against the Utility billing rules (not sure correct term for this?)

4. REFUSE to pay ANYTHING or talk to them again by phone - send phone harassment letter if necessary.

 

These people will try ANYTHING to earn their commission - no shame or conscience - but fortunately no sense either!

 

Don't worry. They CANNOT win this one - even if our new "government" is doing its best to help them all.

 

Good luck

 

BD

[Bazooka Boo]

This now brings you to a whole new raft of complaints.

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/contact

 

Start with them first, three birds with one stone, as they will pass your complaint directly to the OFT & TS who sit alongside.

 

As far as 1st Crud go, thats it, it's ran it's course, they have been instructed that the alleged debt is SB, if they fail to acknowledge this and continue to process data (CRF) and harass for payment, then they should be issued with a LBA and a S10 notice to stop or legal action will be taken and damages will be claimed.

[Bazooka Boo]

P.S. The billing code states that they cannot bill you for any billing period OLDER than 12 months IF, they have failed to contact you within this period and send you a bill.

[cerberusalert]

Page 9 http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

Statute barred debt

2.13 This guidance applies to the pursuit of debt regardless of its age. We will be

carrying out further work on this aspect of debt recovery including analysis of

relevant legislation and practice throughout the UK.

 

2.14 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by

the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that

experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:

 

a. we accept legally the debt exists

b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be

unfair as follows:

• it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from

the creditor during the relevant limitation period

• if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt

is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to

attempt to recover the debt

• it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, for

example, falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally

recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal

provisions, and

• continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to

harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of

Justice Act 1970.