Honours Student Loans 'trace letter' after 15yes

[fletch70]

After the day I've had I would be tempted to say F.O. but ..... you could write back and say do your worst but when I win I will be claiming costs. Probably a final letter of this is S.B and I will not communicate any more

[WindySock]

I seem to recall SLC using the same flawed argument in the past and as far as I know they were always forced to back down in the end and didn't dare try it in court.

 

HSL could be that mad, but I doubt it.

[MoneyRats]

They could be yeah. That's why I'm trying to see if anyone on here has actually been taken to court by them, but no one seems to have said they have.

 

 

If the statute barred letter and the limitation act of 1981 (or whatever the legislation is) stands up in court then I've got nothing to worry about. If they manage to convince a judge that I've been in hiding for 17 years and didn't inform them of my change of address then they'll get the judgement. If they even do take it to court.

 

 

Guess you just have to sit back and see how it plays itself out.

[dx100uk]

there have been no such cases.

 

 

dx

[WindySock]

If they manage to convince a judge that I've been in hiding for 17 years and didn't inform them of my change of address then they'll get the judgement. .

 

No. That's the whole point. That whole argument of theirs is complete tosh.

 

Doesn't matter if you hid, as they could have still taken a CCJ out using you last known address.

 

They were too lazy asred to do so, so have let it become statute barred. That is their silly fault.

 

As I posted on the previous page:

 

This is an extract from the Money Advice Trust training materials.

 

'It is for claimants to prove that they could not reasonably have discovered the facts concealed by the defendant (Paragon Finance v Thakerar 1999).

 

The mere fact that a defendant cannot be traced, with the result that the claimant does not commence proceedings, does not prevent (a cause of action from accruing and) time from running.

 

Even where a person is deliberately hiding from a claimant the 'concealment' provisions relate only to concealment of the cause of action and not to cases where debtors conceal themselves from the claimant (Lowsley v Forbes 1999)

[WindySock]

If hiding or not updating your address really stopped a debt becoming statute barred, CAG would be swamped with cases of DCAs using that argument.

 

Its not, and they don't, as even most DCAs realise its compete tosh.

[WarrenBuffet]

I also concur that their returning to court argument is bull*hit!

 

I found that the best way to deal with these parasites, is to take control.

 

I would say to them "please do take me to court as i cannot think of a Judge who will accept your nonsensical claim. Further, i will as a result counter-sue for attempted fraud. Now Jog on you bunch of tw*ts".

[MoneyRats]

I'll post any further correspondence I get from them. Nothing more yet though. Although the last 'pre legal' letter did say they would “…commence legal proceedings without further notice.” So presumably that means they will not notify me that they have commenced legal proceedings. I guess the court would though!

 

 

I don't care I'll go to court if they want. I sent the statute barred letter, not wasting any more time replying to scaremongering automatically generated letters.

[WindySock]

They may also give up and bu**er off without notice.

[MoneyRats]

Ok got another letter from them day before yesterday (incidentally, and quite hilariously, any letter that says 'you must reply within 10 days' blablabla takes exactly 9 days from the date of the letter to reach me).

 

 

New letter just says:

 

 

FINAL NOTICE - 'Despite our previous letters....' etcetera. 'It is in your best interests to cooperate with us to avoid commencement of legal proceedings' blablabla.

 

 

Yeah ok I'll get right on that.

 

 

Seems like a bit of a de-escalation from the last letter - 'We will commence legal proceedings without further notice if you don't pay within 10 days'. Anyway I shall be ignoring this one too.

 

 

Case continues.

[WindySock]

They know that any court will not believe their lies about the Limitation Act, so their only choice is to press on and hope you can be fooled or brow beaten by 'threats'.

[MoneyRats]

Yeah I think I'll just continue to get these letter for a while now. I'll post here with what I get. I'm quite happy for them to continuously send me letters that I'll ignore.

[WarrenBuffet]

Windysock, i think its time you called their bluff.

 

"Dear Crooks,

 

Please do take me to court, i have had enough of your frankly ilegal threatening nonsense. I look forward to the opportunity to tell a judge of your threatening illegal activities.

 

Yours"

 

PS: I will be ignoring all future correspondence from your organisation and will only answer to the judge. If you choose to ignore this?. I will also make the Judge aware, that you continued to ignore my legal rights.

 

Windysock, i think its time you called their bluff.

 

Read back. Not me.

[WarrenBuffet]

Sorry!

[fletch70]

I have written to several DCA's who would probably win if they took me to court asking them to make me BR or start action if they think they are hard enough. Non have done so yet....

[MoneyRats]

Ok got another letter, and this one is slightly different, equally ridiculous though. 3 pages:

 

Page 1 says

'Notice of Sums in Arrears' and just says 'we are required by law to give you this Notice in compliance with the consumer credit act 1974

because you are behind with your payments.

 

 

Below is a statement of transactions since the last Notice of Sums in Arrears. (*ps I've never had a Notice of Sums in Arrears*).

 

 

Then below it just says the amount they are claiming (which, as I said at the start of all this, isn't even anywhere near the amount of the student loan in the first place)

 

Page 2 is about 'you may have to pay default sums and interest blablabla. Then it says

 

 

'Notices - you will be sent notices every 6 months, we are not required to send them more frequently than this'.

(What like they're doing me a favour by sending them?)

 

Page 3 is a photocopied sheet from the Office of Fair Trading on dealing with debt and how to find support.

 

A photocopied sheet about dealing with debt from the office of fair trading,

as if the office of fair trading is behind them in any way, when they themselves would probably be prosecuted by them if investigated.

 

They are tempting me into a reply just saying "If you think you've got a case, take me to court, if not, don't send any more ridiculous letters or I'll blow your offices up"

[dx100uk]

that's just a std notice they must send under FCA rules

ignore it

 

 

dx

[MoneyRats]

Yep. Ignoring it I am.

 

 

They are good though, they send stuff that riles people into a response.

 

 

They even say things about ignoring it as if I'm ignoring it because I'm scared or something

 

 

- "Ignoring your debt won't make it go away" (!!!)

 

 

Err yeah I'm ignoring it cos there is no debt,

 

 

thanks for your concern tough.

[camdbug]

Just to let you know, I am in a similar position;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?430125-drydens-93-SLC-loan-with-old-CCJ-14-years-no-contact

 

In my case, despite having address updates (I was living in Dublin at the time) the SLC got a CCJ against me. I only found this out quite recently.

 

In my case I have drydensfairfax chasing me on behalf of Erudio and it's in a similar state. After submitting a SAR to SLC and informing me of such they went quiet for a bit, then recently sent me a letter asking me to fill in an Incomes/Expenses report. Ignored that and today received another letter saying that I have until early next week to respond otherwise they "may" take action.

 

I stopped responding to them a while back.

 

Until they decide they're actually going to try and take action, there is nothing they can do.

 

IF they are stupid enough to try and take action, then they are unable to enforce anything anyway, so I'll do something then.

 

In the meantime I await their letters with interest to see what they are going to try next. If they're on schedule I should get something later next week, but I suspect it will be another long wait until the next instalment!

 

They are right though; Ignoring the debt won't make it go away. However, if absolutely nobody has the power to enforce repayment of that debt any more due to years of incompetency, then what is the difference in reality?

[MoneyRats]

Ah good to see someone is in a similar situation.

 

 

In my case I didn't/don't have a CCJ against me though.

Well there isn't one mentioned on any credit report, unless there's another way to find out.

 

All the rest seems roughly similar though.

 

 

You veer dangerously towards giving these [insert massive swear word] any validity at the end there though by saying they are right.

 

 

They aren't right.

No one's ignoring the "debt".

There is legally no debt,

the agreement was broken by them not me (or you).

 

 

Even if you had deliberately witheld your address all these years, the law says that you are not liable now (a generation later) so you are not liable.

 

This is how they wiggle-effect their way into good people's conscience, they imply guilt.

When we all know that if there was even a shred of the amount of legislation that's backing you and me, backing them instead,

they'd be at our door with a transit van and two bald blokes in bomber jackets quicker than you could say 'deferred payment plan'.

 

 

The reality is that debt collection agencies (and that's what these guys they are, not the student loans company) just feed off the misery of others.

[MoneyRats]

It must have been a premonition about the bald guys in a transit van turning up.

Got another letter today which says (in a big bold square box):

 

YOUR ACOUNT IS NOW BEING REVIEWED FOR A HOME VISIT

 

As your account remains in arrears we are now considering a home visit. This visit will be conducted by our agents, Fieldcall Ltd.

 

That's funny cos the last letter I got said they would take me to court without further notice.

 

 

So no court now?

 

 

Now you're "considering a home visit"?

 

 

And what will happen when you visit my home?

(And obviously carefully avoiding the word 'bailiffs', because there is no legality behind anything you say or do).

 

 

Ring my doorbell and I answer and then what?

 

the letter ends with the usual

"To prevent this visit from taking place you need to contact us and make an arrangement to pay. Then the visit will be put on hold."

 

Jesus, "THE VISIT" - sounds like a really bad horror film.

 

 

Or a really sweet hospital drama where they just come and visit you.

[WarrenBuffet]

Ignore it MoneyRats, to me that is threatening behaviour by them. But just file it away and label "Nonsense".

 

If they are stupid enough to send goons then simply tell them to "Jog On" and call the Police regarding being harassed.

[MoneyRats]

Yeah I'm not bothered by it really.

Like camdbug I'm just sitting back and watching it unfold.

 

You see that's the thing here, if I actually owed them money then I would contact them and make an arrangement to pay,

it's not like I owe them money and am trying whatever possible to avoid them.

 

But the fact is that, for a start, I borrowed from the student loans company all those years ago not honours student loans,

honours student loans have bought the debt from SLC, not the agreement.

 

 

They lost touch with me not me with them, I was at the same address for years and notified them when I moved.

The amount they keep quoting is about 3 times the amount I even borrowed back then,

and I'd already paid half of it off before deferring.

 

 

But obviously most important of all, this ex-debt (to SLC) is nearly 20 years old and is very clearly 100% statute barred by law.

 

 

So that's the end of it.

 

 

The top of all that is that I just plain detest debt collection agencies.

They ruin the already poor and in this day and age that's an unforgiveable job.

There's enough misery in the world without chasing a guy for a hundred quid who's struggling to feed his family already (that's not me, but that is 90% of their targets)

[camdbug]

That's shocking. You can see exactly how someone would feel threatened into just paying up. Not daring to say bailiffs add you point out but trying to push that button for those that are already scared.

 

Can't wait to see what my next one is now. Will df lower themselves to this level I wonder?

[camdbug]

Mind you, it's only being "reviewed" for a home visit, so no panic after all! ;-)