Natwest, Capquest and CCS Collect

[dx100uk]

just ignore them

 

they'll sell it on

 

I would not be even bothering to call the police in this instance

 

they will never doorstep.

 

dx

[chiefmegawatty]

just ignore them

 

they'll sell it on

 

I would not be even bothering to call the police in this instance

 

they will never doorstep.

 

dx

 

OK thanks dx for your advice.

 

I would prefer to ignore them as you say.

 

However, other posters on this thread have said that the DCA can take me to court over a statute barred debt

and obtain a CCJ against me if I fail to defend it.

 

know a few poeople who have CCJ's issued by default

who have never received a court claims form prior to the court case.

 

They knew nothing about having a CCJ until long after it was issued.

 

This being the case then surely ignoring any further communications from a DCA

regarding a debt that is statute barred is dangerous

and likely to result in a CCJ issued by default.

 

Elsewhere on this site I have read that statute barred debts cannot be enforced through the courts.

 

Is this the case or isn't it?

[ims21]

OK thanks dx for your advice. I would prefer to ignore them as you say. However, other

posters on this thread have said that the DCA can take me to court over a statute barred debt and obtain a CCJ against me if I fail to defend it. I know a few poeople who have CCJ's issued by default who have never received a court claims form prior to the court case. They knew nothing about having a CCJ until long after it was issued.

This being the case then surely ignoring any further communications from a DCA regarding a debt that is statute barred is dangerous and likely to result in a CCJ issued by default.

Elsewhere on this site I have read that statute barred debts cannot ne enforced through the courts. Is this the case or isn't it?

 

You have either mis-read or misunderstood.

 

Companies can and do issue on SB debts. If a debt is genuinely SB their claims will fail if they are defended.

 

If they are not defended then they may succeed.

 

That is why on more than on occasion it has been said that you never ignore court claims or statutory demands.

 

A CCJ doesn't just get issued unless the defendant doesn't receive the court papers or they ignore them.

 

If the papers are genuinely not received then that is grounds for a set aside of the judgement.

 

It is correct to say that a court will not and cannot grant a judgement on a statute barred debt but of a claimant tries it on then it is up to the defendant to actually defend on an SB basis.

[chiefmegawatty]

You have either mis-read or misunderstood.

 

Companies can and do issue on SB debts. If a debt is genuinely SB their claims will fail if they are defended.

 

If they are not defended then they may succeed.

 

That is why on more than on occasion it has been said that you never ignore court claims or statutory demands.

 

A CCJ doesn't just get issued unless the defendant doesn't receive the court papers or they ignore them.

 

If the papers are genuinely not received then that is grounds for a set aside of the judgement.

 

It is correct to say that a court will not and cannot grant a judgement on a statute barred debt but of a claimant tries it on then it is up to the defendant to actually defend on an SB basis.

 

How can a claiment defend if he never receives any claim form from the court?

 

I have a CCJ that was issued against me 8 months before I knew anything abouit it

because I never received any claims form.

 

The courts are obviously not following legal procedure

and slapping CCJ's on people that know nothing about it until many months after the event.

[ims21]

How can a claiment defend if he never receives any claim form from the court?

 

They can't but that is where a set-aside process can come into play.

 

I have a CCJ that was issued against me 8 months before I knew anything abouit it becauseI never received any claims form.

 

That is where a set-aside process can come into play.

 

 

The courts are obviously not following legal procedure and slapping CCJ's on people that know nothing about it until many months after the event.

 

How so? Why are the courts not following legal procedure?

[chiefmegawatty]

what happens if the DCA obtains a CCJ by default and

then the defendant proves many months later that the debt was statute barred before the CCJ was issued?

 

Does the CCJ stick or does the DCA get prosecuted for taking a statute barred debt to court?

[ims21]

There is no crime in taking an SB debt through the courts.

 

As far as a set-aside goes, that should be applied for as soon as the defendant finds out that a mysterious judgement has been given.

 

In the scenario you describe, the grounds for the set aside would be both non receipt of the original claim and the fact that a debt was SB. The court would look at whether there was a reasonable prospect of a defence and the latter point about SB would be that reasonable prospect. a Set-Aside puts the claim back to the start so that the defendant can offer his defence. If that is the case and the debt is deffo SB then the defendant would win.

[dx100uk]

you also need to 'bear-in-mind' that, [unless you live in Scotland]

a statute barred debt is STILL COLLECTABLE AND OWED in England and Wales.

 

even after 6yrs.

 

dx

[chiefmegawatty]

OK so I assume that I will be taken to court soon by CCS.

 

I therefore assume that the statute barred letter is worthless

and the advice on this site regarding statute barred is also useless.

 

This site avised that sending the statute barred letter with refusal to pay would get the DCA to back down.

 

Obviously that advice was wrong.

[ims21]

OK so I assume that I will be taken to court soon by CCS.

 

Why do you assume that? They may just be trying to out the frighteners on you to get you to pay up.

 

I therefore assume that the statute barred letter is worthless and the advice on this site regarding statute barred is also useless.

 

One statement as above does not lead on to the other sweeping statement you have made. The SB letter is sent to a body who is chasing you for an SB debt. If they carry on chasing then it does go against OFT guidelines and puts the onus on them to prove it is not SB. If you care to read around a bit you will see that there are many many successes wher the SB letter has got DCAs off people's backs.

 

This site avised that sending the statute barred letter with refusal to pay would get the DCA to back down. Obviously that advice was wrong.

 

Erm no it is not. You really need to do some reading and learn from the wealth of information, success stories and the like that are on here.

[chiefmegawatty]

you also need to 'bear-in-mind' that, [unless you live in Scotland]

a statute barred debt is STILL COLLECTABLE AND OWED in England and Wales.

 

even after 6yrs.

 

OK I then assume that in England,

statute barred means nothing and might as well be scrapped.

 

The advice on this site to send DCA's the statute barred letter is obviously absolute tosh.

 

Why does this site advise people to send letters to DCA's

that make no difference to the legal situation?

 

What's the point?

[ims21]

 

OK I then assume that in England, statute barred means nothing and might as well be scrapped.

 

Why do you assume that?

 

The advice on this site to send DCA's the statute barred letter is obviously absolute tosh. Why does this site advise people to send letters to DCA's that make no difference to the legal situation? What's the point?

 

The legal position does not change.

 

Here it is in a nutshell.

 

1-> SB letter to a DCA means that you have stated your position to them. If the debt is SB then they should cease collection activity. If they continue collection activity and the debt is SB then reports should be made to the appropriate authorities.

 

2->Some DCAs will argue it is not SB and continue activity.

 

3->The one thing they cannot do with an SB debt is get it enforced by a court provided any claim is defended

 

4->As dx says, in England and Wales a debt still exists but if you have told them it is SB then they should cease collection activity.

 

5-> If you are sure that a debt is SB then you can ignore the general begging letters etc.

 

6-> The things you must not ignore are court claims or statutory demands. DCAs and others will try it on.

[dx100uk]

because until you tell them the debt is statute barred,

it's leaves them to assume, if they wish, that they can continue to chase.

 

once you nail your colours to your flagpole, by sending the SB letter,

it firmly places the owness n them to prove otherwise.

 

and also strengthens your position IF they should be stupid enough to issue a court claim.

 

the judge would eat them for breakfast, if they knowingly issued a claimform

on a debt that they have been told is, and cannot PROVE otherwise is statute barred.

 

however, thus, back to the bottom

very simple line that started all of this.........

 

YOU MUST NEVER EVER IGNORE A CLAIM FORM OR A STATUTORY DEMAND.

 

else they'll get away with it.

regardless to what you have sent them.

 

if the claim/sd is NOT contested, the judge will not bother to look

nor be presented with ANYTHING you have already sent the claimant.

 

dx

 

dx

[fletch70]

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. A lot of time and effort has gone into discussing what SB is, means and when the clock starts. There is also lots of evidence that once told a debt is SB then the owner of that debt closes the file , sometimes straight away, sometimes it takes a bit of a battle. The debt collectors will pretty much do what they can to get money out of you but knowing your rights and sticking to them does work.

 

I do not know if the OP is trying to discredit anyone or anything, please remember that as a public forum mistakes and poor advice do happen but in my experience as soon as the people in the know find out they step swiftly in.

[chiefmegawatty]

I am not trying do discredit anyone on this forum.

 

I just become confused when previous posts say that statute barred means that it can't go to court and then later posts say it can.

 

Now if you can obtain a CCJ against a statute barred debt then statute barred means nothing.

 

Why should I have to prove to the judge that a debt is statute barred?

 

Surely it's upto the DCA to prove it's not statute barred before the court take action against me.

 

I thought from many posts on this site that it's upto the DCA to prove that a person owes them money

and not for the debtor to prove he doesn't.

 

I have written to CCS and told them that the debt is statute barred and I won't pay anything.

 

Therefore they know it's statute barred and they know that I know it's statute barred.

 

Therefore why on earth would they take me to court when they are bound to loose the case?

 

Also it seems strange that since I sent the statute barred letter then letters have been regularly coming in from the DCA every few weeks.

 

Before I sent the statute barred letter I used to get letters from the DCA every four months

and on one occasion no letters for four years.

 

That's why I consider sending the statute barred letter opens a can of worms.

[dx100uk]

I refer you to post 113.

 

dx

[fletch70]

I think it may help to stop thinking of a debt as anything more than a few lines in a database. When a debt is sold the minimum of info goes with it. If you buy one apple you will know if its bad. If you buy a lorry load you will not know that any are bad unless someone tells you.

 

The other thing is sold who actually owns the debt. If it us not ccs then you can bet that when they return it to the owner they will not say this us SB and hence the cycle continues.

IMHO it is the owner of the debt that needs telling.

[dx100uk]

stop... you mean start....

 

dx

[fletch70]

Something like that. You kmow what I mean.

Its all crap. My amex debt has done the rounds and is now back with RMA revive as opposed to RMA resolve. I wonder if its just a different printer.

[dx100uk]

that's the bloke in the yellow skirt

dx

[chiefmegawatty]

Thanks for your help and comments chaps.

I strongly suspect that Capquest are the owners of the debt.

Capquest are the company who put a default on my CRA report back in March 2012.

The entry on my CRA report showed the default date as 23 May 2007 therefore I assume

that Capquest must know that the debt is now statute barred.

[chiefmegawatty]

Capquest entered a default on my credit report 4 years and 9 months after the default date.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Capquest entered a default on my credit report 4 years and 9 months after the default date.

Debts would normally be defaulted by the original creditor a DCA such as Capquest would just update the OCs entry with their details, a default date must always remain the same.

[chiefmegawatty]

OK thanks Brig.

 

Not having a default placed on your CRA record until nearly five years after the default date

gives me the impression that CRA reports are worth very little.

 

You could therefore check your report for years and find no defaults and think you have a clean credit record.

 

Then suddenly a DCA plonks a default on there which should have been on there five years before and your credit record is ruined.

 

I therefore suggest that a CRA report isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, it's not the CRA at fault they can only act on information supplied by creditors / debt purchasers/DCAs.

It's important to discover when the account was defaulted by the creditor or when " cause of action" arose.