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

[perplexedofdorset]

Hi Guys,

 

I received a letter from the H today, (Ah! How I now love Monday’s) in response to our queries about the conflicting figures on the alleged payments lists.

 

The bod at the H writes A) …’agree that the payment made between 31/12/96 to 1/12/97 on the list provided by the H do not tally ( I must remember that word for scrabble, bit arcane eh?) the payments made between 16/11/95 to 25/11/97 on the list provided by the DLC.’

 

B) They then go straight on to explain that the payments 'headed ‘conversion 98’ are from a historic database which does not take into account payments made to the Additional Mortgage Security company' ie one list shows £500 whereas the other shows £350 …which is apparently the figure arrived at after £150 has been taken off for the AMS.

 

Q; is A an admission? Or is B the reason for A…I still can’t work it out.

 

The H also say in that paragraph that they are carrying out 'a joint debt recovery' which is the reason for these discrepancies!!!!

 

As for the point of proof of contact between themselves and my OH, they say that draw attention to the ‘DLC’s case notes history and list of payments made by yourself’…. and that from these they ……’ are totally satisfied that we have proven contact and will not enter into protracted correspondence on this point’

 

Frankly I do not understand the way these things are worked out, the bod at the H enclose the DLC list of payments, which she helpfully annotated but they still don’t seem to make sense…to me anyway.

 

This bod does however, give me a generous 8 weeks to respond, after which 'she will assume we are happy'!

 

I’m really beginning to think that we are just bashing our heads against a wall,.... or rather I am.

 

By the way ...still no news from the DLC concerning the SAR request.

[unclebulgaria67]

All they are saying, is yes there are discrepancies, but these can be explained. They are basically saying that they believe the information from DLC does relate your OH's mortage and that this shows contact within the 6 years of the debt being incurred. Therefore in H's opinion, it is pointless getting into any further communication, unless new information comes to light.

 

Wait to see what DLC provide in regard to the SAR and wait for response from the FOS.

 

Remember that although there is no speedy resolution in your OH's favour within sight, it is better that getting ever more increasing legal threats from Shoosmiths. That is what you would have had, if the complaint had not gone to the FOS.

[perplexedofdorset]

Thanks Uncle B

as ever a soothing voice in this frenetic world.

I shall let you know when the SAR comes back, tho what it will say i don't know...can you prove who held a bank account, credit card 11 years ago???

I suppose you can!

[perplexedofdorset]

when should I expect the SAR info from DLC to get to me. I posted the request on the 26th April, 1st class recorded.

[cerberusalert]

They have 40 days from receipt of your request to comply.

[unclebulgaria67]

when should I expect the SAR info from DLC to get to me. I posted the request on the 26th April, 1st class recorded.

 

They have up to 40 days to provide the SAR info.

 

Up to you, but you could send them a reminder that the SAR is still outstanding and they have until 6th June 2012 to provide it.

[perplexedofdorset]

thx

[perplexedofdorset]

Hi Guys,

received a letter today from the team manager of casework at the FOS...yes the woman who was dealing with our case has handed it over.

It has now gone on to the second stage of their process, the Ombudsmen.

 

She is very concerned that i am unhappy with the way the case has been treated and 'would love (yes seriously) the opportunity to speak to me' about the matter and to 'find out what (the best service) looks like to me individually'

 

all in all a quite strangely written letter, very touchy feely, but then I suppose that's her job and a much nicer letter to receive than the usual bureaucrateese.

 

So far no SAR report, given that its now the 1st of June and as Uncle B says they've got until the 6th to provide the information...what do I do?

(I didn't chase them as the whole of this is upsetting enough without writing unnecessary letters)

Was I wrong not to chase them?

Do they have to pay a forfeit if they don't get the report to me by the 6th?

 

Answers on a postcard please.....

 

Have a nice long jubilee weekend chaps and chapesses, whatever you're doing;

As for chez nous...my hubby has done his usual long BH weekend thing of deciding (at the last minute) to build something...

this year its a cage round our raised beds...and guess who has to scurry round like a madwoman to get all the bits together???hahahhahahah

[dead_cat_bounce]

As several other people have said, just send them a Ststute Barred letter. Do not speak to them in any way. Do not recognise the debt in any way.

 

Do not fall for any of their tricks - A favourite one at the minute is asking for a "token payment" of maybe £10 whilst they "sort it out". I am pretty sure the Debt Collection Agency has simply bought a big batch of very old debts for next to nothing and is simply "having a go". They do this because a lot of people have forgotten all about it and moved on with their lives - the shock of suddenly being "caught up" can get payment out of a surprising number of people.

 

If you ignore the letter, I can almost guarantee you'll get another one offering you a massive discount for immediate settlement - I've seen 90% discounts offered on old debts. The agency will still be making a massive profit at this level.

 

It's just a game - refuse to play!

[unclebulgaria67]

Just sit and wait. Give them say 7 days after 6th June and if you don't receive the SAR info, then chase it up with a further letter, advising that you be looking to make a complaint to the ICO.

 

Always pays to complain. Sometimes, people start being nice to you, as with the lady from the FOS. In her defence, she probably is fed up of dealing with the complaints and has a high work load, but with bills to pay etc etc. Following your complaint about her attitude, I suspect that her line manager, has had a word, telling her to send a nicer letter. I wouldn't bother responding or calling, as she will have just have been wording a letter as she was told. Perhaps her future letters to other people, will be more professional.

 

Now that it has gone to an actual ombudsman, I suspect it will now take longer before you hear anything substantive about the complaint. If you do receive anything helpful from DLC, just send it on to the FOS, with a covering letter. Don't send a copy to Halifax, as it would be up to the FOS to liaise with Halifax.

 

Have a good Diamond Jubliee weekend !

[perplexedofdorset]

Uncle B,

the letter was from her line manager...not the original 'I don't think you cam make the deadline' woman.

 

Thank you for your advice, I thought the same as you....

Enjoy the weekend, hope the bowels behave

[unclebulgaria67]

hope the bowels behave

 

A,E,I,O,U ?

 

Oh I see. No I am solid at the moment. Stopped eating spicy food and eat more muesli. Leftover curry for breakfast is very nice, but has its downside !

[Ell-enn]

 

Have a nice long jubilee weekend chaps and chapesses, whatever you're doing;

As for chez nous...my hubby has done his usual long BH weekend thing of deciding (at the last minute) to build something...

this year its a cage round our raised beds...and guess who has to scurry round like a madwoman to get all the bits together???hahahhahahah

 

Cage! Beds ?????

[perplexedofdorset]

in your dreams only ellenn...hgahahhahahah

 

maybe he has a thing about rolling around with the lettuces??!

[perplexedofdorset]

mmmmnnn...i remember a misspent youth of curry for breakfast too....yumyumyum

[perplexedofdorset]

Ok Guys,

 

The SAR arrived on Saturday morning and basically all they have are the case notes, with inaccuracies such as the ex wife's name and the list of alleged payments and a print out of a computer screen showing his name and address at that time.

 

Despite stating that they had received some cheque payments, no bank details were included...maybe/probably because they dont have them.

 

Our point is...who were they in contact with / who was making the alleged payments...they can't offer any proof that it was actually my OH.....

 

so where do we go from here????????????

 

did everyone enjoy the endless coverage of Betty's jubilee???

 

We now have a wonderful frog and cat proof cage round our raised...VEG... (Ell-en) beds!

[sillygirl1]

They have no real case, they cannot use a phone call as evidence they contacted your husband unless they have the recording and it is his voice, therefore their claims are very very dubious.

 

This should have been put to bed a long time ago.

 

I would now stop writing to them as clearly the more you write the more wound up you become.

 

Should this end up in court they would be very very sorry.

[dx100uk]

phone conversations are NOT allowed as evidence even if transcribed or recorded - END OF!!

 

its a civil case [if ever it got that far.]

 

dx

[unclebulgaria67]

I would just send on the SAR info to the FOS, with a covering letter saying that the system notes from DLC do not in any way prove any contact with Mr xxxxxxxxx. Halifax have not been able to substantiate any proof of contact or payment and therefore you believe that the complaint against Halifax should be upheld.

 

Even if the complaint was to be rejected by the FOS, on grounds of technicalities, I could never see the Halifax taking this court with the information that they have. You have shown that you have been quite willing to challenge and would continue to do so. When I say technicalities, I suspect that the FOS will say that they can only consider complaints in a very narrow way. e.g have the Halifax broken any rules, have they acted unfairly. The FOS may say that the Halifax can ask for payment, as they appear to have made contact within 6 years, but that the FOS cannot issue any rulings based on the legal case, as that would be up to a court to decide on.

[perplexedofdorset]

Hi guys,

 

Well holiday mode well and truly over and back to work, I enclose a draft of the letter I am going to send on to the FOS...

could you take a look at it and let me know what you think.

 

Do you think we should mention my OH's toxic marriage, many separations, and his eventual nervous breakdown which took him out of the picture completely, which is in the background of all this. The ex wife had plenty of male relatives and friends around at times when my OH was not present in the marital home and our case is that they may well have been talking to someone...but who??

 

There was no evidence as to where the payments originated from in the SAR despite the system notes mentioning cheques and delta card payments, so they have not got (or included) those details...

 

In reference to the case above, I enclose a copy of the extra information sent to me by Direct Legal Collections after my request for a full Subject Access Request. I specifically requested any financial details as to the source of the payments they alleged Mr *** made as well as all other information held by them; as you can see the only additional piece of information they have sent was a screen shot of basic details of Mr *** address at that time, which is enclosed.

 

The Halifax’s ‘proof’ of contact between themselves and Mr *** during the initial 6 year period of this debt remains a list of unsubstantiated payments and some system notes, which include fundamental inaccuracies such as the name of his wife and date of divorce, and which do not constitute the required written evidence.

Whereas DLC and Halifax may have been in contact with someone regarding this debt, we maintain it was not Mr *** and as such we believe that contact within the 6 years was not made and our complaint against Halifax should be upheld.

 

So there we go, please let me know what you think and I will pop it in the post, along with an extra tree from the rainforest in the shape of copies of DLCs information, should I enclose a copy of the covering letter from DLC?????

 

Scratch all that, the printers acting up so I don't want to stress it out unnecessarily so will it be ok to just send copy of screen shot and covering letter if required?

Edited June 8, 2012 by perplexedofdorset

[unclebulgaria67]

Do you think we should mention my OH's toxic marriage, many separations, and his eventual nervous breakdown which took him out of the picture completely, which is in the background of all this. The ex wife had plenty of male relatives and friends around at times when my OH was not present in the marital home and our case is that they may well have been talking to someone...but who??

 

There was no evidence as to where the payments originated from in the SAR despite the system notes mentioning cheques and delta card payments, so they have not got (or included) those details...

 

In reference to the case above, I enclose copies of the information sent to me by Direct Legal Collections after my request for a full Subject Access Request. I specifically requested any financial details as to the source of the payments they alleged Mr *** made, as well as all other information held by them. As you can see the only additional piece of information they have sent was a screen shot of basic details of Mr *** address at that time, which I enclose here. ( Is the address correct ? What proof has been provided of any contact at this address ?)

 

The Halifax’s ‘proof’ of contact between themselves and Mr *** during the initial 6 year year period of this debt remains a list of unsubstantiated payments and some system notes, which include fundamental inaccuracies, such as the name of his wife and date of divorce, which do not constitute the required written evidence. ( Where have they obtained the date of divorce ? Could they have talked to his ex-wife or someone else ? If the wife was not on the mortgage, but lived at an address where Halifax/DLC made contact with, they could have obtained the details from the ex-wife or someone connected to her. They would have seen from your OH's credit record, that there were linked addresses, so may have contacted the ex-wife. Perhaps she made the payments or someone did on her behalf, to avoid any hassle from debt collector turning up at her door )

 

Whereas DLC and Halifax may have been in contact with someone regarding this debt, we maintain it was not Mr *** and as such we believe that contact within the 6 years was not made and our the complaint against Halifax should be upheld.

 

So there we go, please let me know what you think and I will pop it in the post, along with an extra tree from the rainforest in the shape of copies of DLCs information, should I enclose a copy of the covering letter from DLC?????

 

Scratch all that, the printers acting up so I don't want to stress it out unnecessarily so we it be ok to just send copy of screen shot and covering letter if required?

 

Taking the info in red into account, I would change the letter to.

 

In reference to the case above, I enclose copies of the information sent to me by Direct Legal Collections after my request for a full Subject Access Request. I specifically requested any financial details as to the source of the payments they alleged Mr *** made, as well as all other information held by them. As you can see the only additional piece of information they have sent, was a screen shot of basic details of Mr *** address at that time, which I enclose here. No proof of any communication to this address and of having made contact with Mr **** have been provided.

 

The Halifax’s ‘proof’ of contact between themselves and Mr *** during the initial 6 year year period of this debt remains a list of unsubstantiated payments and some system notes, which include fundamental inaccuracies, such as the name of his wife and date of divorce, which do not constitute the required written evidence. DLC and Halifax may have been in contact with someone regarding this debt, we maintain it was not Mr ***. We question whether it is possible that whoever was chasing this debt, made contact with the ex-wife of Mr *** or someone living with her. Even though the ex-wife of Mr *** was not party to the mortgage, she may have been pressured into making payments, for fear of harassment by the debt collectors. This is purely conjecture on our part, but may be an explanation.

 

To further explain the position of Mr***, so you may understand the situation a little better. The marriage prior to the divorce had been pretty toxic, with several separations and when the marriage ended it left Mr *** suffering from a nervous breakdown. Mr *** left home, leaving his ex-wife at the address.

 

We believe that contact within the 6 years was not made with Mr *** and Halifax or their collection agents DLC have not been able to prove otherwise. You would think that had there been any contact with Mr *** over a period of time, that someone would have made definitive file notes or took copies of proven contact, so that they could pursue the debt. We therefore believe that our complaint against Halifax should be upheld.

[perplexedofdorset]

Cor! Thats good Uncle B...a step up I think from previous letters...much more aggressive!

 

As to your Q's in red.....

Yes the address was correct at the time.

The case notes state that they rang the address and received letters and cheques from my OH from the address...however I have not seen anything like that, and it certainly wasn't provided with the SAR info.???????????

As for their knowledge of the 'divorce' this seems to be just a note on the case file as in...'he is now divorced and moved to new address.'

I think it unlikely that they have spoken to my oH's ex wife since 1998 since that was the last (tenuous) mention of her in the notes.

 

There are lots a mentions of payments; standing orders, cheques, delta card payments received etc through the notes...but DLC (and Halifax) have not provided any copies of these mandates or details of the source of the payments.

 

They also say that my OH sent a signed authority for them to discuss the matter with his ex wife in Jan '96...again this wasn't sent to me in the SAR...surely this would be excellent proof for them...why didn't they send it??? do they have it???

They also said they were in contact with his work places.....

[sillygirl1]

Apart from leaving off the Whereas in the final paragraph it is fine, their proof, as you state, is circumstantial and not substantive enough for a court case, should they try that now they will be the sorry ones.

 

I would put in a final reminder about the CML Code of Conduct and that this is an unreasonable request and that you will not be indulging in letter tennis again with them.

[perplexedofdorset]

Letter tennis...I like that!!

[unclebulgaria67]

The bit I struggle with is the timeline of communications/payments that are mentioned in the information that has been sent to you.

 

Whoever, is dealing with this at the FOS, will I expect try to piece together a timeline. It is important that whatever letter you send, does not go against the timeline. If DLC have written to a correct address within the 6 years and they have file notes stating payments plus contact from that address, who would the payments plus contact be from, apart from your OH ? Was he living alone at the address they had written to ?

 

If the SAR information does not give dates on, so you can't see what the timeline is, than the letter you send to the FOS, should be as simple as possible.