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

[perplexedofdorset]

Hi gu 's....

i have a problem here.

m compu er has gone wrong.

i can no longer pe an 's or 's or 's and m shif ke has also gone111

now i know his ma be mind boggling funn, and i would be he firs o laugh if i were happening o someone else bu.....

wih he deadline of ma 1s fas approaching i'm in a pickle.

so he leer o he fos and he sar reques were alread wrien and ped bu no he one o he halifax....

 

wha shall i do ????????

[unclebulgaria67]

Turn your keyboard upside down and give it a good shake. Sounds like you have some dirt underneath the keys.

 

If not, try turning off your computer and then make sure the keyboard cable is connected properly.

 

If you cannot type the letter. Then just handwrite it.

[perplexedofdorset]

is he one o he halifax imporan?

i was jus o sa he should have heard from he fos b now and o ask abou he differences beween he wo liss, no ime sensiive????

 

i know wha he problem is ...

i has o do wih a cas ail and a glass of wine...no much go on he compuer, bu enough...

im hoping i will graduall dr ou...

 

ps m handwriing is awful

[unclebulgaria67]

Reading your posts with the missing letters, is like my eyesight when I have a migraine. When I get a migraine, I can read the text, as my eyesight goes wonky.

 

Use a hairdryer from a distance to help dryout more quickly.

[perplexedofdorset]

ooops sorr uncle b....no harm inended

[zydeco]

just butting in with a bit of pc help

 

"START" > "Programs" > "Accessories" > "Accessibility"/("ease of access" )> "On-Screen Keyboard"

 

you can then use your mouse to type. hope this helps.

[perplexedofdorset]

brilliant!!!!!!

thank you so much........

 

please find below a draft of my next letter to the Halifax....

 

Thank you for your last letter, received earlier this week. I am at a loss to understand how you can chase me for this debt when you can offer no proof of contact with myself within the time limit outlined within the CML guidelines.

I am unable to explain why you have not yet heard from the FOS and have written to them enclosing your letter.

I have enclosed here copies of two different lists of alleged payments, from yourselves and Direct Legal and Collections, highlighting differences in dates received, amounts paid and even in the total amounts. The DLC’s list does not correlate in any way with your (the Halifax) list of alleged payments. This strongly indicates that the record keeping at DLC and the Halifax may not be reliable and casts doubt over any allegations of my involvement with these payments.

Couple these discrepancies with your inability to provide evidence as to the source of the payments and inaccuracies in your case notes, and we find your allegations of contact to be highly suspect.

 

any suggestions ??????????

[unclebulgaria67]

Sounds ok.

 

What proof of contact within 6 years of the debt being created, have the Halifax previously provided ?

[debbbbsy]

Remember that they do not have to follow the law and no one has to prove a thing, so if halifax say that black is actually white then the ombudsman will probably agree with them

 

I have to agree. The FOS is run by ex bankers, funded by the banks......they may uphold the odd complaint, but from my own experience they are a waste of time. Consumers need an independant complaints procedure.

 

But good luck anyway. But I would strongly suggest that while you have the momentum, even though its with the FOS keep writing to the bank, asking for data, asking questions, just let them know your not giving up.

 

Debbie

[Dougal16T]

Perplexed. With a limitations argument if the credit cannot prove how/when/by whom the payments were made then they shouldn't be able to rely on them. I would argue that this would be exactly the same when raising a CML argument.

 

Morning all and Perplexed,

I agree entirely with this. basically I do not think the Halifax 'have got a leg to stand on'.

 

In all cases heard in a Court of Law, the one thing which is relied on to prove or disprove matters is EVIDENCE.

 

1. Where is the evidence from the Halifax? Answer : perhaps it does not exist!

 

2. Why are they so reluctant to provide it if they have it ? Answer: see 1. above!

 

3. In the almost impossible event that they do have it, they will be criticised if they have failed to provide it when requested by you to do so. Reason: They have not complied with the CPR (Civil Procedure Rules) on Pre-Action Protocol.

 

This is not me being clever - it is a fact. IF...it is their intention to pursue this through the Courts then there are steps that they MUST follow in order to do so.

 

So far all they provided is a headache for you and a lot of hot air......

 

The most important QUESTION : WHERE IS THEIR EVIDENCE?

 

They can say that your OH owes them millions, but unless they can provide proof to that effect by the way of evidence they haven't a case to pursue.

 

I believe that from the outset they have been trying it on, and a read of the Pre-Action Protocol (for Court action in Civil Cases) shows this:

 

Examples of non-compliance

4.4

The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance by a party because, for example, that party has –

(1) not provided sufficient information to enable the other party to understand the issues;

(2) not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant pre-action protocol, or, where no specific time limit applies, within a reasonable period;

 

In my humble view, I still think that unless you can be provided with hard copy evidence of any payments which the Halifax say were made then there is no case which they can take to Court.

 

I know I ramble on.....but I want to help and offer some thoughts which might assist you.

 

As always

 

Best wishes to all,

 

Dougal

[perplexedofdorset]

What proof of contact within 6 years of the debt being created, have the halifax previously provided

 

The payments allegedly made by my OH from '96

The DLC list shows payments from Nov 95 to June 2000

The H list shows payments from Dec 96 to June 2000

The H also say that my OH contacted them by phone in Sept 95

 

Well today I posted off the letter to the FOS and the sar request to the DLC with the £!0 fee,

so what do you think of the draft to the H ?

[unclebulgaria67]

Letter to H was OK.

 

So there is a difference of 13 months in the accounting dates between DLC & Halifax. DLC have payments from November 1995 and Halifax have payments from December 1996 ?

 

What evidence have they supplied from DLC about any repayment plan your OH has supposed to have entered into ? They have not supplied exact evidence of the payments and how this data has been produced. Is it system information or microfiche records ? This is important, because if it is system info entered against the debt account number, with a specific reference to the payment being made by Mr Perplexed, then this could be accepted a reasonable proof your OH made the payments. If on the other hand, the repayment records cannot be proved to relate to your OH's debt, then I doubt it would be accepted as reasonable evidence he made the payments.

 

Wait to see what comes back next. Sometimes best to leave any extra probing of evidence until another time. That way, it will hopefully wear the other side down and they might just give up.

[perplexedofdorset]

I'll have to say OK to that post uncle B,as i understand not a jot of it, well once you got into the main body of the post!

I'll send the H letter off tomorrow, do you think it needs to go recorded?

Do you think i should ask them to explain the discrepancies or leave it like it is?

 

(Thanks again to the 'buttinski' who has enabled me to type again! x)

[unclebulgaria67]

What I was getting at, is how did DLC record the payment information ? And how have they produced it, when Halifax requested the information. When you get the SAR info from DLC, it will be interesting, whether the information supplied is the same.

 

Having worked in financial services, companies change their IT systems every so often. I don't expect that DLC have the same IT system that they had between 1995 and 2000. Even if they did have the same IT system, older records would have been archived.

 

Therefore if DLC have changed IT systems or records have been archived, where is the proof that the payment details they have supplied relate to your OH's debt. For all you know, DLC have accessed the wrong payment details or incorrect payments were recorded against your OH's debt record. Sometimes, when companies store or record information, mistakes can be made.

 

Up to you whether you want it recorded or just get a proof of sending slip from the post office.

 

I think I would ask about the discrepancies, as it casts doubt on the reliability of the information. If they don't explain it when they respond, then perhaps they don't know, which is something that you can draw to the FOS attention.

 

As a further thought to ask at some point, is whether the Halifax have breached any of the accounting standards required by the FSA. The discrepancies over payments between H and DLC, would appear to show poor accounting.

[perplexedofdorset]

thanks uncle B, how about this?..........

 

I have enclosed here copies of two different lists of alleged payments, from yourselves and Direct Legal and Collections, highlighting differences in dates received, amounts paid and even in the total amounts. The DLC’s list does not correlate in any way with your (the Halifax’s) list of alleged payments, in particular the 13 month gap between receipt of the first alleged payment. I would ask you to explain these discrepancies as it strongly suggests that the record keeping at DLC and the Halifax may not be reliable and casts doubt over any allegations of my involvement with these payments.

[unclebulgaria67]

Yes looks good to me.

 

Halifax would be responsible for the accuracy of the records held by DLC, if the current rule was backdated. But as the period relates to 1995 to 2000, there was probably some other regulations that applied.

 

I only raise this issue, as whoever paid the money to DLC on behalf of Halifax, had the right to expect their money to be handled properly.

Reconciliations with external records

 

CASS 7.6.9 01/11/2007A firm must conduct, on a regular basis, reconciliations between its internal accounts and records and those of any third parties by whom client money is held.

[Note: article 16(1)© of the MiFID implementing Directive]

[zydeco]

(Thanks again to the 'buttinski' who has enabled me to type again! x)

Glad I could help

[perplexedofdorset]

Ok, will be sending be letter off to the H this morning.

Thanks everyone!

by the way, the computer is still fffffff...aulty!

do you think my home insurance would cover it? (I have new for old cover,tho the damn thing is only 11 1/2 months old)

 

This is he finished draft, i added a couple of tweaks in the wording........

 

 

Thank you for your last letter, received earlier this week. I am at a loss to understand how you can chase me for this debt when you can offer no concrete proof of contact with me within the time limit outlined within the CML guidelines.

I am unable to explain why you have not yet heard from the FOS, and have written to them enclosing your letter.

I enclose here copies of two different lists of alleged payments, one from yourselves and one from Direct Legal and Collections, which show differences in dates received, amounts paid and even in the total amounts. The DLC’s list does not correlate in any way with your (the Halifax’s) list of alleged payments; please note in particular the 13 month gap between receipts of the first alleged payment. I would ask you to explain these discrepancies as it strongly suggests that the record keeping at DLC and the Halifax may not be reliable and casts doubt over any allegations of my involvement with these payments.

Couple these discrepancies with your inability to provide evidence as to the source of the payments and inaccuracies in your case notes, and I find your allegations of contact to be highly suspect.

Edited April 27, 2012 by perplexedofdorset

[brokebutnotbeatn]

yes re the computer i would think but you need to log it quickly so its recorded before the 12 months is up. Looks like a good letter to me. Perhaps finish up by saying 'as I have had not contact with you since (last date - 1995 (?) this debt is clearly SB'd and I cordially insist you cease all contact with me accordingly....'?

[Dougal16T]

Ok, will be sending be letter off to the H this morning.

 

This is he finished draft, i added a couple of tweaks in the wording........

 

 

Thank you for your last letter, received earlier this week. I am at a loss to understand how you can chase me for this debt when you can offer no concrete proof of contact with me within the time limit outlined within the CML guidelines.

I am unable to explain why you have not yet heard from the FOS, and have written to them enclosing your letter.

I enclose here copies of two different lists of alleged payments, one from yourselves and one from Direct Legal and Collections, which show differences in dates received, amounts paid and even in the total amounts. The DLC’s list does not correlate in any way with your (the Halifax’s) list of alleged payments; please note in particular the 13 month gap between receipts of the first alleged payment. I would ask you to explain these discrepancies as it strongly suggests that the record keeping at DLC and the Halifax may not be reliable and casts doubt over any allegations of my involvement with these payments.

Couple these discrepancies with your inability to provide evidence as to the source of the payments and inaccuracies in your case notes, and I find your allegations of contact to be highly suspect.

 

Morning all,

 

That is a very good letter - wish I'd thought of it!!

 

Very best wishes to everyone

 

Dougal

[sillygirl1]

Yes, good letter, it gets the salient points across nicely and puts the onus of proof back onto them which is where it should be.

[perplexedofdorset]

thank you Dougal,

but i think the real praise should go to the 'butinski' (hahaha affectionately meant, Monsieur) that showed me how i can still type with missing keys!

[unclebulgaria67]

Yes good letter.

 

Re Home Insurance and claiming. Probably not worth it, due to the excess and likely increases in premium. They will want it to be inspected and you may then have to send it off, so could be without it, for weeks. Unless expensive parts have been damaged, it will just be repaired and sent back. While it is off for inspection, you will have the issue of all your data being available for the technician to see.

 

Might be worth waiting to see if the problem goes away and if not, taking to somewhere local to have it looked at. It might just need to be cleaned out.

[perplexedofdorset]

Ok guys, today I received letters from the H and the woman at the FOS ( I thought these people worked slowly?)

 

Starting with the H, as its simplest ,

they basically have sent their complaints leaflet (again!) and assure me that my concerns will be dealt with as soon as possible...simples

 

The letter from the FOS is far more sinister.....

 

she has (apparently)....

' considered the additional information that we sent, however her view of our complaint remains unchanged' !

she says that whether my OH 'made the payments or not is (suddenly) irrelevant as the evidence sufficiently shows that contact had been attempted and made within the necessary timeframe'

which means that 'The H is therefore entitled to pursue my OH for the shortfall'

 

So because the H notes say they had been in touch with my OH, they must have.

 

Do they have any evidence that the person they allegedly spoke to on the phone was my OH, or just a man that answered to his name...

was this in the time of 'your phone call may be monitored for....????'

 

She then gives us til the 14th May to respond with any ' evidence that we have not already provided' and again notes, somewhat sarcastically i think, that she 'does not think we will be able to meet this deadline'

 

She then says 'consumers have the right to ask an ombudsman to review their case' ....

didn't we do that in the last letter when we wrote ......

'we therefore wish to continue our complaint with the ombudsman' ?

 

No mention was made about any of the discrepancies regarding the lists of alleged payments (as she obviously now believes these to irrelevant)

 

Is this woman actually READING our letters??????? maybe that's why she is so speedy regarding our case!!!

hahahahhaha (thats hollow laughter, guys..I actually feel pretty sick)

 

As to the 'irrelevant' payments, the H case was that because my OH allegedly made them he was liable, will their tack now change as the woman at the FOS's has?

 

 

Im confused, scared and worried here...

 

Everyone on here was so reassuring that the H had not got a leg to stand on and now it's looking as if it's all going horribly wrong...

 

If the woman at the FOS doesn't uphold our complaint because she is taking the H's word as gospel, what will happen now???

 

Is there anywhere left to go with this? as the woman at the FOS clearly isn't open to our argument.

 

£26 grand is a lot of money, (more than half our current mortgage) and not something you find down the back of the sofa.

 

I'm really scared that we will be pursued til the end of time and my poor OH will be working even harder than he does now just to repay a mortgage from 20 odd years ago OR he will up sticks and disappear.

 

By the way, my OH had that insurance that pays up if he defaults which the H admits they cashed in, receiving £16,000 odd from Sun alliance...so what with the sale of the flat, Why are they pursuing him?????

 

On the only nice note of the week (so far) I'm writing this on my repaired laptop, without the aid of on screen keyboard!!!!!

Has anyone noticed any missing T's. Y's or 4's?????? Is my left hand SHIFT KEY not working...I think not...Deep Joy!!!!!!

 

Good old Samsung..I called up. they arrived next day to take it away (30th April) and it arrived back repaired with what looks and feels like a brand new keyboard this lunchtime....3 cheers for Samsung!!!!!!

[unclebulgaria67]

Thought you had another letter from someone different at the FOS, saying that your complaint would be looked into. Perhaps the lady that is responding does not know anything about that.

 

I would suggest that you leave replying for a bit, to see if H respond with more info and if DLC respond with your SAR info. Perhaps sometime next week, just send a complaint letter to the FOS about the way your complaint had been handled and ask for your file to be passed to the Ombudsman. Tell them that you are continuing to make enquiries with H and DLC, as you do not believe that all information has been provided.

 

I think what the lady at the FOS is saying, is not about the 'legal situation' in regard to whether the H could ask a court to enforce the debt or not. That is not the position of the FOS. All they can say, based on the information that they have been provided with, is that the H would under the CML rules, be able to chase for payment, as they had contacted your OH within 6 years. They are not commenting about the 12 years limitations (statute barred) rules.

 

Under the limitations rules, any court would look at what could be proved about the last date of payment or written admission of the debt being admitted to. From the evidence that you say has been provided so far, it would appear that there is no strong evidence of your OH making the payments or sending any written admissions in regard to the debt. This is why Dougal is saying it is unlikely that H will be able to pursue. I tend to agree with this, but cannot be categorical, because I don't have a crystal ball, so cannot say with certainty that on a given day, a judge will agree with the H or not. It may never get to court, if the H don't think they have any chance.

 

Just take it one step at a time. There is no point getting all despondent every time a letter is received. Going to the FOS was never going to be a one stop magical solution to make the H go away. The actual Ombudsman may come to a different opinion to the lady adjudicator, if H don't have evidence of contacting your OH within 6 years of the debt.

 

Good news about the Laptop. You will certainly need it, as I suspect a few more letters will be required in coming months. ( Atleast it keeps your mind active !!! )