They come in waves

[Coactum]

It has been a long time since I've posted on this forum and to be honest I thought it had served its purpose well

and that I had no further use of the advice from others.

 

Indeed my most recent post albeit a while back have been in response to others rather than to seek assistance.

 

I'm writing today to compare notes.

You see I've not been troubled by debt collectors in a while but recently activity has recommenced

and when I think back it is clear that they come in waves. I wonder if others are seeing similar patterns.

 

Following advice elsewhere in this forum I stopped paying my creditors and commenced a tactic along the lines of

"I repudiate this debt, prove it!" and I suspect that as a result most would be time barred if action was taken.

So, I'm somewhat surprised that there is a fresh flurry of activity.

 

My current tactic is to do one of many things that are all designed to hold them on the phone for as long as possible

without acknowledging or confirming who I am.

 

I feel that they are intruding on my time.

 

Are probably on commission for funds collected and that if they realise they are wasting time with me

they might bypass next time around and if not well I can be just as annoying to them as they are to me.

 

I live in Scotland where a creditor has 5 years to raise legal action after which the obligation of the debtor to settle with the creditor lapses.

 

My most recent default was issued in July 2009 but this relates to a debt purchased by third parties who issued a fresh default after I disputed the matter.

 

This in its own right was wrong as a default cannot be issued whilst the matter is in dispute.

Most other default notices were issued a few years earlier.

I have not acknowledged any of these alleged debts since 2007/8 and so most are time lapsed and others will lapse later this year.

 

One of my creditors did raise legal action a few years back but withdrew when they saw my defence.

I seriously doubt that the others will ever raise action and if they do I'm suitably prepared to lodge my opposition.

I guess that even though the obligation to settle may have passed that this does not stop a creditor persisting in their efforts to collect

and passing the account from one collection agent to another and this explains my waves of calls every six months or so.

 

What about you? Do you see a pattern with my experience described above?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Statute Barred in Scotland 5 years with no payment or written acknolegment of the debt, and the debt is extinguished.

 

But the debtor should inform the creditor in writting that the debt is statute barred and as such they will not be paying.

[spamheed]

They seem to increase their activity as the debt becomes closer to being Statute Barred, there are even companies who appear to favour such debts as they can purchase them for next to nothing and persue them very aggressively as if they get anything at all by way of payment, even the smallest amount, this is seen by such companies as an acceptable return on their investment.

 

They also use multiple identities to make it appear that such a debt is being escalated towards an appearance in court, when the reality, as many on here have already experienced is thast the debt is simply moved to the next desk in the same room

[Coactum]

Forgot to say that today's phone call was from Capquest who purchased a debt which they show on my credit file as having defaulted in January 2007.

 

Phone calls yesterday where from MKRR (Milton Keynes Rapid Recovery who have also name themselves Raven, MK and MKDP on previous calls)

and the debt they purchased shows a default notice issued in January 2008.

 

As such under the laws of Scotland these lenders have allowed time to pass without receiving any payment or raising action for recovery.

 

Therefore, under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, these debts are completely extinguished and cannot be enforced.

 

Makes you wonder why they keep trying!

[Coactum]

From what you say BRIGADIER2JCS it seems that it is my responsibility to advise them of this being statute barred. Surely they have a duty to understand the law and to pursue that which is denied and statute barred would be harassment?

[KaptRoger]

The Brig is right.

 

They will chase and chase and threaten court action until you tell them that it is SB. Once they have received the SB letter they will either write back and apologise for inconveniencing you and that will be the end of it or will leave you alone for a while and then start again with the letters but without the threat of court action (because that option will have been removed by the SB letter).

 

Don't forget that these are not the most ethical of companies.

[Coactum]

Not ethical companies KaptRodger; surely not!

[Coactum]

I should alos add that I'm somewhat reluctant to write telling them they are barred just in case I'm mistaken.

 

I'm sure that I've not acknowledged the debts but there is a slim chance that at some time perhaps during a phone call and before I was fully aware of the consequences that I might have verbally said something that could be used against me.

 

The calls no longer bother me and I simply refuse to tell them anything that even acknowledges that they are speaking to the correct person. So, if I need to live with this a while longer then so be it. I am confident that by the middle of next year that all will have reached the point of being Statute Barred regardless of who bought what for who when, if you get my drift.

[spamheed]

I should alos add that I'm somewhat reluctant to write telling them they are barred just in case I'm mistaken.

 

I'm sure that I've not acknowledged the debts but there is a slim chance that at some time perhaps during a phone call and before I was fully aware of the consequences that I might have verbally said something that could be used against me.

 

The calls no longer bother me and I simply refuse to tell them anything that even acknowledges that they are speaking to the correct person. So, if I need to live with this a while longer then so be it. I am confident that by the middle of next year that all will have reached the point of being Statute Barred regardless of who bought what for who when, if you get my drift.

 

 

A debt must be acknowledged in writing, or a payment made against it, anything said during a telephone conversation would not restart the SB clock

[sillygirl1]

I am finding the same, gone nearly a year without any activity and now one company chasing for a debt - phoned them three times now at their request and asked them not to phone, but as they can't identify me via the address they have (I moved nearly 4 years ago now) they still insist on calling and texting.

 

I've requested a copy of their complaints procedure and if it doesn't come will write to them (I have their address anyway from another alleged debt they ran away from last year).

 

The whole industry needs a shake up and hopefully if the OFT live up to their new powers they will close the sharks down (I can name three companies I think ought to be put into a terminal sleep, and others who need monitoring).

 

If the Statute of Limitations was 3 years as it is in Europe, the UK would be in a far better financial state.

[Coactum]

Hi SillyGirl1, I'd advise you not to enter into any telephone discussions and to insist that all communications are conducted in writing. At the very beginning of any call they will go through the process of verifying who you are. Just refuse and say "if there is anything you wish to say to SillyGirl1 please sent it in writing" if you feel the urge to reply then ensure that you admit nothing.

 

I have heaps of letters that follow the same pattern.

• They begin with a polite please pay.
  
• Move on to if you don't pay something bad will happen.
  
• Next comes This will be escallated if you do not do something
  
• Then comes the Solicitors letter
  

However, untill it looks as if they are actually going to go to courty I sit back and at the last minute I reply with my demands. This usually sends them away again. It may not work for you though!

[Coactum]

Thanks spamhead. Good to know that these recorded discussions are inadmissible. I'm sure I've not put anything is writing that did not contain "Without Prejudice" and in the body of text I’ve always expressed that I repudiate the claim and asked them to prove their case. Some have actually replied to this request but all contain flaws of one form or another that i've replied and highlighted.

[sillygirl1]

Don't worry Coactum, I am a well seasoned CAGGER by now and I know how to play them on the phone - it is quite amusing that they cannot connect me to an address they already know about - and that they want ME to confirm to them something that is not going to happen!

 

If I don't get their complaints procedure by Friday I will - as stated - write formally complaining and list the date and times of their messages.

 

I've sent many a company away, and besides, I am on jobseekers allowance, have been for the last 2 years, so they ain't going to get anything anyway unless it is categorically proved that I do owe the money (as far as I know all VALID debts were repaid when I was made redundant).

[sillygirl1]

By 'Solicitors' letter I assume you mean their in-house Solicitor for rent outfit.... again these are easily dealt with by sending in a copy of a DWP letter or a copy of council tax letter - once they realise you have nowt and own no property they go off to other prey.

[sillygirl1]

Using 'Without Prejudice' is a bit pointless as you can't use those letters in court should you need to prove you have been negotiating - there is nothing in negotiating that warrants this as far as I can see - you are hiding nothing and they should be hiding nothing.

[Coactum]

You gave a fiar point SillyGirl1 about the Without Prejudice but that's what I've done. The letters I refer to are from a solicitor acting for the debt collector and most were probably sent by the DCA using the solicitors letterhead. They are not worth bothering about and most are simply ignored especially when the make reference to English law.

[sillygirl1]

I know what you mean, their 'interpretation' of the law is laughable at times.

 

I still remember telling one particular DCA lady (who was well known on this forum at the time) that I got better sense talking to my puppets than her - she was not amused!

 

DCA baiting has long been a 'hobby' of mine, and sometimes just ignoring their letters is the best. It is the 'recorded messages' to my mobile I strongly object to.

[Coactum]

Oh yes, I've had those recorded messages on my mobile also. Bearing in mind that they could not reasonably confirm that the number dialled was my mobile number I have to express that I was surprised at the content of the recording.

[sillygirl1]

The one this morning said I can press option 1 to speak to them immediately about a very very important financial matter.... did amuse me!

 

What is even more annoying with this lot is you get put on hold and they tell you they can 'offer substantial discounts, payday loans (yes really...) or other loans to help you repay your debts.....' very much against the OFT guidelines on debt collecting.

[Coactum]

Oh I'm certain that's definately wrong and if you were to take a loan out to service another debt would you not be showing preference to one creditor over another? In the event of insolvency I'm sure any sums paid this way swould be reclaimed.

[wilko999]

Same here,

 

I put all mine in dispute between Feb and April years ago, it always seems to be about this time of the year I get an influx of fresh letters or from different DCAs on the merry go round. Most of mine are SB from next month onwards. Just a couple of bigger ones that don't get there until later in the year both of which have ppi and charges although not enough to cover the outstanding so leaving them to get sold on first and then SB before I claim that back!

 

I just ignore now. Had one take me to court so far and pulled out once my defence was submitted. These days I just wait for the same, ignore until they decide to do the court thing if they ever do and most don't then go with a full on defence and watch them fold. Most can't be bothered with it, they'll just collect on the ones they can or try and get judgements by default on those who've moved house etc. Chancers the lot of them.

[Old Cogger]

pity the SB ones letter does not come with pre-paid or otherwise envelopes to send back with notice of SB limitations or sent back no stamp. I sent some in the past =empty.

[LostAtSea]

Don't get hung up on the default date, its when that last payment or written acknowledgement was made that starts the SB clock.

Incidentally, I liked the reply I received from hillsden after informing them an account was SB and therefore extinguished (I live in Scotland) "We have taken a commercial decision not to pursue the mater further"

[Coactum]

And a very wise "commercial decision" that was too LostAtSea

[Coactum]

Ah wilco999 I also have PPI on some of my accounts but thought the I'd be Statute Barred in making claim as I've failed to take action within 5 years. One of my disputes relates to this very topic and if they refunded the PPI it would exceed the debt! Can someone please clarify the time limit for reclaiming PPI?