Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi.   I agree with Dave on which way to go with this. I know you're new to all of it but it's worth more research to see how PPCs behave, if NCP have made any errors and so on.   HB
    • Well, it's up to you, but I would consider two things.   1.  If you wanted to give in, the time to give in would have been at the start.  They're now suing you and if you pay now you'll have to pay their costs, and if it goes to a court case and you lose you'll have to pay their costs, so in a sense you might as well continue the fight.   2.  Although you were "in the wrong", it's perfectly possible that NCP don't have planning permission or sent out their demand too late, or will simply discontinue if you put in a robust Witness Statement.   Meanwhile I've tweaked the defence a bit, see if others agree or disagree.   1.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract.   2.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.   3.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.   4.  I believe that the claimant did not obtain planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.   5.  The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure.  
    • I ordered a new computer last week online and it was faulty so had it replaced yesterday. This was also faulty so I had another replacement sent out today!   While I was negotiation either a refund or a replacement they asked me if I wanted to order a different one, so I had a look around the website but couldn't decide in the time I had so I just went for another one the same.   The delivery guy just turned up to take away the old one with a replacement AND the alternative one I was looking at!   So I took both anyway, because I'm still actually in two minds as to whether I want to stick with the original computer or go with the alternative, which might be more reliable because it's a more established company.   They didn't ask me for any credit card details so as far as I am aware so far they won't have charged me for the extra computer. Would they need to take my details again or would it go through automatically?   Am I within my rights to keep both if they've made a mistake and don't charge me?   I don't want to come across as dishonest, but well:   1. I've spent the past week setting up two computers, trying to fix things only to end up having to go through it all again today and this has been a huge waste of my time and a lot of stress (time is money) 2. I decided to just take both primarilly because I saw the box for the alternative and it looked nice and I thought I could just take both anyway and then decide which one to open and keep (because I'm guessing if I have been charged both to my card and I open both then I've got no legs on so far as a return is concerned)   Anyone got any consumer advice on what legs I have to stand on and what I should or should not do at this point?
    • Around the time I used that carpark quite frequently and would always pay on the App. I don't often carry change and the pay machines there were notorious for not connecting for card payments - NCP always blamed Vodafone's coverage.     If my dates are correct, I had a new staff member with me on that day and we were headed for lunch. I was also in a hire car. As the hire car wasn't registered to the parking App I think it's highly likely I intended to pay for the parking when sat down for lunch but ultimately failed to do so.
    • I imagine there must be some book somewhere which describes exactly what each particular service interval should comprise. Are you able to get hold of that?
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2941 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi All

 

I recently wrote to ScotCall regarding an old statute barred debt which they were trying to get money for on behalf of Activ Kapital Ltd.

 

In response to the statute barred letter I sent ScotCall, they did the right thing and confirmed that they had closed the account and were returning it to their so-called client at Aktiv.

 

However, despite my insisting that ScotCall advise their client of the contents of my letter,

Aktiv Kapital have now just passed the same statute barred debt on to a DCA called Ruthbridge.

 

I have received a letter from Ruthbridge making the same demands for payment on the same debt

and insisting that I must pay to avoid their recommendation to their client (Aktiv) that further action be taken against me.

 

This makes me furious.

Can they legally do this?

They must know full well that I have written and informed one of their associates of the status of this debt

and that I will not be paying now or in the future.

I thought that was suppose to constitute harrassment?

 

Do I have to write to all of these "so-called" collection agencies in the same way as I did with ScotCall?

Please can anyone give me the correct advice on how to proceed from here.

 

Many thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi All

 

I recently wrote to ScotCall regarding an old statute barred debt which they were trying to get money for on behalf of Activ Kapital Ltd.

 

In response to the statute barred letter I sent ScotCall, they did the right thing and confirmed that they had closed the account and were returning it to their so-called client at Aktiv. However, despite my insisting that ScotCall advise their client of the contents of my letter, Aktiv Kapital have now just passed the same statute barred debt on to a DCA called Ruthbridge. I have received a letter from Ruthbridge making the same demands for payment on the same debt and insisting that I must pay to avoid their recommendation to their client (Aktiv) that further action be taken against me.

 

This makes me furious. Can they legally do this? They must know full well that I have written and informed one of their associates of the status of this debt and that I will not be paying now or in the future. I thought that was suppose to constitute harrassment?

 

Do I have to write to all of these "so-called" collection agencies in the same way as I did with ScotCall? Please can anyone give me the correct advice on how to proceed from here.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Ok no messing with bemused letters here send this tp The Compliance Manager at Ruthbridge.

 

Ref: as on their letter.

 

Dear Sir or Mdam,

 

I refer to your letter dated xx xx xxxx in which you claim I owe a debt for £xxxx originally owed to xxxxx, please not I do not acknowledge any debt to Ruthbridge or any company you may claim to represent.

 

You should be aware that this alleged debt was in the hands of another incompetant debt collection agency namely Scottcall who were informed and agreed that this alleged debt has become statute barred thus I will not now or in the future make any payment or offer of payment in regard to the alleged debt.

 

I am fully aware of the OFT Guidance on Debt Collection 2003/2011 and the sections regarding the pursuit of statute barred debt and I shall also be reporting on the sale of a debt when the pursuer has been apraised of the status of the debt.

 

You will now cease to process and store any data relating to me and remove it from your records withh immediate effect.

 

Recorded Delivery.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

And make the token complaints to the OFT&TS.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am inclined to think that on this matter ie a SB debt being sold on that FOS would have little regard for this, where as the OFT and the ICO have in the past stated that they are ''not in favour of statute barred debt being sold on without the seller informing the purchaser of the status of the debt, a statement that has seen off Ruthbridge on many occasions.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT don't deal with indivudual complaints, they are likely to refer on to the FOS.

 

Trading Standards would be the other option. They can be a serious postcode lottery though sometimes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

what is this debt?

 

is it on your CRA file?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of your replies guys and for the letter Brig. Much appreciated. I will send that off later today.

 

To Dx, this is an old Barclaycard Debt from way back in 2001 that would have become statute barred in 2007.

 

It does not show on any of my CRA files at either Callcredit, Equifax or Experian (or Noddle for that matter)and I am a member of all 4 so check my files regularly.

 

From the above comments though, I am still not 100% clear on who I should be reporting them to.

 

Oh, as an aside,

I suppose I should mention that I had several debts back in 2001,

none of which are on my credit files,

none of which have been acknowledged in writing or paid into since 2001.

 

I say this, as I have only so far been chased for the debt that Ruthbridge are now chasing

and it was only a month ago that I wrote and sent my first ever letter to a DCA, which was Scotcall.

 

I now have a fishing letter from 1st Credit which I suspect may be for one of the other debts.

 

But I suppose that doesn't matter as any will be statute barred now as they all stem from this exact same period.

 

I will just have to deal with each individual debt as it no doubt surfaces.

 

The point is though, that as soon as you write to one, that seems to bring all of them out of the woodwork.

Edited by undernie
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you write informing them that it is SB, they will either close their files and thats the end of it.

 

Or they will come back with a phantom payment made which they claim reset the clock, but when faced with "thank you for your written evidence of attempting to commit fraud, this will be my defence should you continue in bringing legal action" they usually think twice about losing their credit licence.

 

And in any case, when you inform one DCA that the debt is SB and they then continue to pass it amongst themselves to finance their rotten to the core industry a complaint needs to be made to the OFT&TS about the practice of passing on SB debts without disclosing the status of the debt/

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Bazooka Boo. The letter Brig supplied me with has gone out today. I will keep this thread updated with any further responses I receive from them regarding this particular debt.

 

Many thanks to all once again.:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boo, if Ruthbridge have got their grubby mitts on it any phantom payment would around 2000 or earllier:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were up to using 2007 now??

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought we were up to using 2007 now??

 

Naah I understand they have aquired bag loads of do do from Lowell,I sense fun coming.:whoo:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi All

 

Just an update on this thread. Last week I sent the letter that Brig outlined for me to Ruthbridge via special delivery. They received and signed for it on the 26th Oct (Proof obtained and kept). I heard nothing until today.

 

I get a letter from them dated 26 October (only received today so that's five working days to get to me????) completely ignoring the letter that I sent them and basically, to sum up, containing the following:

 

1.They note they have had no response from me regarding my "defaulted" account. (Yes they have)

2.They want to offer 65% discount. (??)

3.They will recommend to their client sending doorstep collectors if not paid up.

4.They will ensure that my credit files are listed as "satisfied" on this debt with the credit reference agencies when I pay up (It is not on my credit files in the first place).

 

Now, I know this might be just some computer generated letter that has gone out on the same day as they received my letter, but why it would take 5 days to get to me I don't really understand and surely I would have received something else from them also as acknowledgement of my letter and its contents in the same time period if that was the case?

 

So in essence this is just stage 2 of their harrassment campaign to try and get me to pay up on a statute barred debt. Are they legally allowed to just ignore my letter to them?

 

Another curious thing about this Ruthbridge company is that I sent my letter to them to the following address which is at the top of their letter:

 

Ruthbridge Ltd

Ruthbridge House

15 London Road

Twickenham

Middlesex TW1 3ST

 

At the bottom of the letter in very small print is another address as a registered office at 13 Princeton Court, 53-55 Felsham Road, Putney,London SW15 1AZ. (???)

 

Then, on the back of the envelope, it states, if undelivered return to

 

PO Box 530

Manchester M5 0DB

 

I mean, WTH???? I mean how are you suppose to know which address the letters are coming from? Clearly it's not in Twickenham or Putney? And is this a deliberate deceit so that they can act like they haven't received my letter from me?

 

Can someone please advise on what I should do next, if anything. Or should I just ignore these people now that I have written and made my position clear?

 

Many thanks as always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

discount letter - ignore

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the letter sent second class, and was it sent using one of the UKMail, TNTMail or similar service as that would add another 3 days to the process.

 

This company must be reported for using different addresses, clearly they are hiding something, either a back room operation which is offshore (again would add to the delay in the letters and lack of reply to your letters). I would reply to the address on the letter.

 

They should not be sending doorstep collectors as you have already told them not to send them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reg office address is an accountants office, they will be acting as company secretary, the returned mail address is a bulk mailing centre.

I seriously doubt anyone had read your letter when this one was sent out.

Just ignore.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies.

 

Yes there was TNT written on the top right hand corner of the envelope.

 

My response went to the main address at the top of their letter and was signed for by them on receipt of it the day after I posted it.

 

Just thought it was odd that there was so many different addresses. Thanks for the input Brig.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi people,

 

Just as an update to this thread, I have today received a letter from Ruthbridge in which they confirm my letter to them and have noted the "issues" I have raised. They have been in contact with Activ Kapital ltd who have "advised" Ruthbridge to return the account to them so that they can deal with it directly.

 

Ruthbridge also confirm that they have closed the account at the their end and that I will not be hearing from them again regarding this matter. However, they state that Aktiv Kapital will soon be in touch with me themselves to discuss the "issues" I have with this debt.

 

So, that has gotten rid of Ruthbridge, but I'm not sure what Aktiv Kapital are up to, as they should be closing the account also, especially considering that they are the ones responsible for passing this around from pillar to post.

 

It will be interesting to see what they are going to say, if anything, and to see whether they are going to continue passing this statute barred debt around any further or are going to try and come up with the "phantom payment" rubbish that I have heard about on hear so often.

 

Time will tell and I will keep this situation updated as it progresses, although when I hear from Aktiv Kapital I will most likely start a new thread relevant to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inventing a mysterious payment maybe!!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...