Capquest and Statutory Demands

[miss muppet]

Hi Silverfox, we haven't got a thread on this but daughter got SD from Capquest, hearing 12th August, on Cap 1 card, we have complained to the OFT and about to sign consent form for permission to disclose complaint. Will advise how things go. 2nd time she's had one, first being from 1st Credit on a Barclaycard, that one was set aside.

[Bobity]

Hi Silverfox

 

I have had a Stat Demand from CQ which I have applied to the courts to set aside. I am still awaiting a date. I was directed here by Miss Muppet (thanks Miss M) and am adding my thread and am complaining using your template.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?315062-Capquest-Statutory-Demand

 

I SARed Egg (OC) and they came back to me and said they couldn't locate a valid account using the details I gave. The address from which I was writing had changed but the name and account number were the same obviously. I resubmitted the SAR and explained the change of address and gave the old one as well. They wrote back again and said the address provided didn't match the one on their systems. They asked me to prove the change of address. I find this strange as they sent me a letter, prior to this by 12 months, saying the debt had passed to CQ using the account number but sending the letter to my new address - so they didn't need proof to send that one out! Plus, this letter (from EGG) came more than 3 years after CQ first got in touch with me.

[silverfox1961]

Thankyou. I have added your thread to my list

[miss muppet]

Hi Silverfox, we haven't got a thread on this but daughter got SD from Capquest, hearing 12th August, on Cap 1 card, we have complained to the OFT and about to sign consent form for permission to disclose complaint. Will advise how things go. 2nd time she's had one, first being from 1st Credit on a Barclaycard, that one was set aside.

 

 

Hi Silverfox,

 

Just a quick up-date on this, daughter won her set-aside to-day, the Judge put us both through the wringer and we only got £80 costs but we are happy! I will put a longer version of this with some important points for the Capquest fan club on a new thread tomorrow when I've recovered!

[silverfox1961]

Hi Silverfox,

 

Just a quick up-date on this, daughter won her set-aside to-day, the Judge put us both through the wringer and we only got £80 costs but we are happy! I will put a longer version of this with some important points for the Capquest fan club on a new thread tomorrow when I've recovered!

 

Great stuff. I do like it when CQ get shafted

 

I will make a note as well for the future

[babybear39]

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?258608-Capquest-have-issued-statutory-demand-Advice-please-**Set-Aside**&p=3104368&viewfull=1#post3104368

 

Post 345 in the link above, is an account of the OP's day in court. Although the SD was set aside, it was apparently with great reluctance the Judge did so. A warning was given that once CQ came up with the paperwork, they would be able to issue another one !!

[Smeagol]

A worrying post on the face of it!

 

Are there any general lessons which we, as consumers, should learn from this and is it considered that the comments of the Judge will tend to empower DCAs in general?

 

Smeagol

[Basil Fawlty]

Does anyone on here know, once and for all, if the setting aside of a SD means another one cant be served?

 

BF

[citizenB]

Does anyone on here know, once and for all, if the setting aside of a SD means another one cant be served?

 

BF

 

 

Have flagged the question in the hope of obtaining some guidance on this. I agree, it is extremely worrying.

[Basil Fawlty]

Have flagged the question in the hope of obtaining some guidance on this. I agree, it is extremely worrying.

 

 

Thanks cb, I think its very important to know a definite answer.

 

BF

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?316081-Capquest-Statutory-Demand-Notice-Help-Needed-Please/page2

 

CapQuest issued SD on this one. OP decided to ignore as CQ had ignored his letters.

 

It would appear no further action has been taken - evidence IMHO that the SD was just being used as a debt collection tool.

[silverfox1961]

No suprises there!

 

I think the amount of SDs from CQ have dropped recently so what I was thinking of: Next week, contact all those that we have a list of (I already had mel23's) and get them to do a complaint (if they hadn't done so already) It may not be enough for the OFT but it's a start

[Kie2304]

Hi,

 

I received an SD of CapQuest today for an old Egg debt from over 8 years ago! Do I simply ignore it? ? Thanks guys!

[Smeagol]

Hi Kie...

 

The alleged debt may be time expired and you haven't said whether or not it is in dispute and/or with whom such a dispute may be.

 

There are those on this forum with much more experience that I have but my instinctive reaction is to suggest (merely to suggest) that where an account is in dispute no other action may take place unless and until that dispute is resolved.

 

I would not advise ignoring an SD but, depending upon circumstances (and more informed advice) it may be appropriate to inform CrapQuest that they may be in breach of OFT Guidelines if the account is in dispute or, indeed, statute barred (I'm not an expert in statute barred issues and may be doing my first posting on the subject in a week or two).

 

Good Luck,

 

Smeagol

[Kie2304]

Hi Smeagol,

 

Thanks for your prompt reply. I took this credit card out over 10 years ago thinking about it. They closed my account after approximately a year without reason and then I moved and have never heard anything from them until now! The amount is for £1300 approx with charges of £700 making this up. Any advice would be appreciated!

[Smeagol]

Hi Kie...

 

My instincts tell me that, based upon the additional information, this alleged debt may be statute barred because it appears not to have been pursued for six years or more. Bear in mind that I only have the tiniest green bar and others have great big, long ones. Like a London Bus, three will come along in a short while so keep your powder dry:-)

 

BTW CrapQuest seems to send out SDs almost by default and I believe that the judiciary frown upon using this tactic to attempt standard debt recovery - hence this now long thread.

 

TTFN

 

Smeagol

[Undercover-Elsa]

If you're sure that you haven't paid or acknowledged this for at least 6 years then you can send the Statute Barred letter. There's a link to the template in my blog, linked below.

Additionally if the amount claimed of £1300 includes £700 of charges this would take it below the level of £750 required for bankruptcy.

Crapquest have really excelled themselves with this one.

 

So...I would send CrapQ the Stat Barred letter. Add that you will be reporting them to the OFT for threatening a Stat Demand on a debt which is Stat Barred.

If they persist also send a Subject Access Request to the original company (again, info/link for this in my blog) to get full info on your charges, last payment etc, then you know exactly where you stand and can reclaim the charges to reduce the debt.

 

kind regards,

 

Elsa x

[Smeagol]

Hi Elsa..

 

I've read the popup on the 6 years element. Please can this be interpreted in layman's terms?

 

For example, if a DCA contacts me about an account in dispute and one responds to them by saying that the alleged debt is in dispute I would take the view that this is not acknowledging the (alleged) debt - but I've been wrong before.

[Undercover-Elsa]

It's a matter of being very careful how you word letters, ie never refer to "my account", say instead "the above referenced account" and do not sign the letters.

To be effective an acknowledgent must be clear, and signed, or a payment made, imo. Requests for information are not acknowledgent. To be doubly safe, include in any letter that this does NOT constitute an acknowledgement of the debt, and/or head it "Without Prejudice" for belt and braces

 

The SB clock starts from the date of "accrual of cause of action" which is after the first missed payment (or more if the T&C's state longer) when a breach occurs, or if the account is already in default, the day after the last payment or acknowledgement.

 

HTH

 

Elsa x

[Smeagol]

Indeed it does help, Elsa!

 

It explains why certain "outfits" push so hard for a handwritten signature when and X or a typed name is acceptable in law.

 

My question was aimed at drawing out the precise information that you have provided so that we less expert contributors and followers of this thread could fully understand what constitutes legal acknowledgement and for that I thank you.

 

At the risk of subbing (and pre-empting a post that I am yet to formulate following correspondence from the Information Commissioner) please have a look at my TinyURL below and give it three votes if you follow its drift. Otherwise the new thread will follow once I'e digested the import of what the ICO has said.

 

TVM (thanks very much)

[Smeagol]

So when Cr@pQuest refuse to acknowledge proper legal authority to deal with a specified person (signed in the legal sense, as opposed to a handwritten signature) and, despite such authority and very clear OFT guidelines, persist in harassing whom they claim to be a debtor and when the alleged debt is a mystery to the alleged debtor and, in any event, is time expired what is the best course of action? Should I :-

 

1. Send them an SAR?
   
2. Refer the matter to the OFT?
   
3. Refer the matter to police?
   
4. Take some other action (suggestions always welcome).
   

[silverfox1961]

Hi

 

 

Capquest have gone a little quiet now so think it is about time you reported them to the OFT if you haven’t done so already.

 

 

Please bear in mind that the template letter on the first page of this thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?306742-Capquest-and-Statutory-Demands&p=3422496&viewfull=1#post3422496

 

may not be suitable for all and you will have to adapt it to your own circumstances I.E

You applied to get it set aside and CQ didn't turn up

You applied and CQ agreed to discontinue

You ignored and CQ did nothing

 

 

Today the OFT set out some new guidance and sending SD's as a debt collection tool is now frowned upon.

If you want to read it, here's the link

[url=http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/OFT664Rev.pdfYou][/url]http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/OFT664Rev.pdf

 

You can complain by email and the OFT will email you back a form to sign and post back to them for them to be able to add your complaint to their list.

 

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/contactus;jsessionid=81B320B21212C0304A1D83BF0004F6EA

 

I will be sending this post to every Cagger I have on my list so you may receive it again.

[Smeagol]

Hi SF1961...

 

Thanks for getting back.

 

Please note that the link to the OFT PDF (in full in my email version of your reply and on the above post) is responding with a 404 error on the OFT site - they've probably moved the page.

 

Certainly will involve the OFT because CQ is ignoring the OFT Guidelines. Will also draw the attention of the author to the criminal law being breached since the author is the lawbreaker. I believe that the, "I was only following orders," defence was last used (unsuccessfully) at Nuremburg. Of course, I may be wrong.

[silverfox1961]

The link should be working now. It was my fault for not putting a space after posting the link before typing again.

 

I have sent the message to some but I'll do therest later as I have to go out.