Help! Husband's 18year old mortgage debt landed on our doorstep today. I'm terrified.

[perplexedofdorset]

got it...sorry!!!

About the riots, my OH is working away from home at present, (and no i cant get council tax discount despite him being here 1/7!) and guess where he was last night???

yup, looking down on the flames in the capital!

scary!

[perplexedofdorset]

The riots in London and other places

government buildings are sure to be targeted

I think.

but as Uncle Bulgaria correctly pointed out , there are no chav designer goods available there, and i doubt the people responsible are capable of stringing the thought process together to make the connection...

think Homer Simpson wanting some peanuts but finding 5 dollars instead!!!

 

My OH was watching the action and said there a few older organising the younger..?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It's terrifying we have lots of relatives

in North London, so constant worry.

 

Brig.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Pictures in the papers this morning of

young kids making off with looted goods,

I think it's time for Government to declare

a state of emergency as America did after

the floods and hurricanes, then looters

got shot on sight.

Most other countries would not sit back

and look for someone to blame, and considering

the Human Rights of the looters and arsonists.

 

 

END OF THE RANT FOR TODAY:-x:madgrin:

[cerberusalert]

The riots in London and other places

government buildings are sure to be targeted

I think.

 

 

My OH was watching the action and said there a few older organising the younger..?

 

According to the Daily Hate they haven't targeted the dole offices so business as usual.

 

No doubt it will be well orchestrated by some middle class anarchists, a bit like football hooligans.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

No doubt, theres already been mention of gangs

of very young kids being organised to loot.

[unclebulgaria67]

It's terrifying we have lots of relatives

in North London, so constant worry.

 

Brig.

 

But as a Brigadier we can put you in charge to sort the problem out !

 

We did this during the last foot and mouth outbreak, which worked very well.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Iv'e a sneaky feeling that we might see TA brought

in if this escalates further.

MP's patrol here on a regular basis with the ''County Mounties''

[cerberusalert]

 

They don't like it up 'em you know Cpt Mainwaring

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Brilliant, A few corporal Jones' would I think be far

more efficient than our politically correct police force (oops mustn't say forces any more) SERVICEs:madgrin:

[perplexedofdorset]

hello all, glad to see you've been having fun whilst i was away.

Loooove the pic!! is it my imagination or does Pike look older there then he does now???

Anyway letter posted , as ever first class recorded.

So i expect the next developments will be next week, or at end of this.

I will let you know what happens, if thats ok, and ask your advice.

Now how to plant the seed that the newly released Raebok/Burbery Combination tracksuit/hoodie/cap are being stored, pre launch,

at a certain office block in Northampton....

Twitter anyone??????

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Nice one, good luck with this.

 

Brig.

[rdm2006]

Why mention CPUTR 2008 then ? They will be aware of their obligations to meet certain legal standards. They are a law firm who have been around for decades. It is a pity they have joined the debt collection world, but then so many others have also done so.

 

The OP is going to ask for documentary proof of the information Shoosmiths say they have and that is all they need to do at this stage.

 

A simple mention of the CUPTR does not constitute an accusation. Sometimes making these people aware that we are aware of our rights makes them think twice. Having dealt with shoosmiths myself they may be aware of their obligations this does not mean that they will not try it on if they think you/we do not.

 

Put it in the letter or don't it makes no difference to me, but keep the knowledge that it is there.................

 

To me, there are two arguments

 

1. Without proof of the documents you say you hold (which, i might add, they will have to send to P.O.D.(under civil procedure rules [CPR] if they wish to rely upon it in court) then the argument is moot.

 

2. SS is acting for Halifax who are members of the C.M.L. The CML code of conduct says it will not pursue after 6 years. therefore it is an unfair practice to pursue the debt. The info they say they hold is beyond this 6 years again SS's argument is moot

 

 

or use them both together

 

that is all I am saying

Edited August 10, 2011 by rdm2006

[perplexedofdorset]

Dear RDM2006,

 

Please be aware that Halifax would also be infringing the CML code of conduct and as such, as you claim to be representing them, you should inform them of this.

This was included in the last letter sent under Uncle Bulgarias advice, so does that cover what you said in your last post?

 

under Civil Procedure rules Please explain????

 

and i think what you mean to say is that their argument would be MOOT ie: Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled

[rdm2006]

Sorry I do mean moot (senior moment corrected) CPR - Civil Procedure rules - quickest explanation

 

The court requires both parties to have done certain things before appearing in court, one of which is to have supplied each other with all information each party intends to rely upon. (This should be done at least 2 weeks before)

 

and yes that should be ok

Edited August 10, 2011 by rdm2006

[perplexedofdorset]

thank you

[perplexedofdorset]

Update Update Update...is anyone still out there???

 

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you kind folks but i have been waiting since posting the letter on the 9th August for SS's reply.

Anyway i have just received it, dated 23rd August.( Do you think the lovely lady dealing with this has been on holiday??? lucky her, we haven't had a holiday for years!)

 

It was a very thin letter and basically stated that they have referred my 'queries' (i think they mean request for evidence of their allegations) to their 'Client' the Halifax and will be back shortly with the requested information.

 

So what do you think? the letter seems to suggest that it is the Halifax themselves that are chasing my OH, didn't someone say on here that that is considered extremely bad practice after 6 years by some code or ombudsman? CML?????

 

Any ideas what, if anything I should do next???

 

Over to you,

(Please don't take this wrongly, but in the very best way, its been nice not being on here every day!!!)

[sillygirl1]

Do nothing, they haven't got a leg to stand on - as previously stated.

[unclebulgaria67]

I suspect SS don't have much info from the Halifax so they have gone back to them and you will hear something at some point. But this may take some time. From what I have seen in large financial services companies, is that their records are a mess.

 

My gut instinct on this, is that in a months time your OH will receive a letter saying that the matter has been closed and that you will receive no further correspondence from them.

[cerberusalert]

Given the age of the a/c I doubt whether the original data will still be available, it'll be archived or destroyed.

[perplexedofdorset]

fingers crossed

 

and a big thank you to you all for still listening!!!!

[Ell-enn]

I doubt very much if you will hear anything at all - it will dawn on someone at Halifax that it's SB'd and that will be the end of it

[cerberusalert]

I doubt very much if you will hear anything at all - it will dawn on someone at Halifax that it's SB'd and that will be the end of it

 

 

Awe come on........I believe in giving most people the benefit of the doubt that they have got a modicum of intelligence.... but that would be stretching it a teeny weeny bit too far.

[perplexedofdorset]

but its not over 12 years IF as they claim my OH paid £200 toward it in 2000.

This could be quite likely as, as i said, he was experiencing the breakup of his toxic marriage, redundancy and a nervous breakdown at that point.

[Ell-enn]

let's assume they're going to have difficulty in finding proof of who made the payment, where and and when - after 11 years