Vampyra -v- Various DCA's

[Vampyra]

OK thanks Danny. Sorry to sound stupid but as I've said before, on a forum one can get conflicting "opinions" which are just that and not necessarily fact!

 

Without moaning, I am also excessively tired this week and have a slightly muzzy brain!

[dannyboy660]

OK thanks Danny. Sorry to sound stupid but as I've said before, on a forum one can get conflicting "opinions" which are just that and not necessarily fact!

 

Without moaning, I am also excessively tired this week and have a slightly muzzy brain!

 

 

Hey, you're not stupid by any means!! You've made me re-think some of my blinkered ideas and I'm beginning to get a better picture of how things work, purely by asking some pertinent questions in the right places.

 

I know what you mean about conflicting opinions. Just when you think you've got it sorted, someone throws a spanner in the works, and you start doubting what you thought you understood.

 

This site is quite addictive though!!

[NitrousOxide]

This is what I thought but was recently told that f the creditor or it's agents have made attempts to contact the debtor in the 6yrs period, even if there is a gap, they have actively persuing the recovery of their money. Thus starting the 6yrs period over.

 

I have to say I tried to ask some relevant questions and said to Richard if I am wrong correct me, but maybe he missed my post. Therefore, please do not take what I have said to be gospal - just an opinion as until I have a firm yes or no to questions I would never like to say it's true.

 

I'm also a little perplexed by Dannyboy stating these are not "coverall" Acts. Surly an Act is an Act and not manipulated to different situations? I maybe wrong here maybe someone can explain.

 

I am a pain I know - was always told "keep asking questions, however stupid you sound, til you understand" - so now you know

Hi,

The limitations act is about bringing a claim to court. For example it stops someone bringing a claim against you after say 10 years if they find an old debt you forgot about.

It is from when it was last aknowledged as far as I know by way of admission.

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[PriorityOne]

Can I ask Richard to clarify this issue. I am aware that the statue of limitations act runs from the last payment or admission, but what constitutes an admission? Can a conversation on a telephone constitute an admission?

 

A written acknowledgement of contact from debtor to creditor... or payment towards the debt would constitute re-acknowledgement. Telephone conversations are meaningless.

[make them aktiv runners]

Limitations Act

I think this thread includes everything amongst the various postings

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/72208-barclaycard-thames-credit-selling.html?highlight=statute+barred

[make them aktiv runners]

Thankyou Richard for post 69 and your many other posts. It is much appreciated that you take the time to detail the various statutory instruments in force and their meanings.

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG

[Seahorse]

Please note that in Scotland, the limit is 5 years.

 

I'd be interested to know how, if at all, this would impact on an agreement written under English law, where the consumer is a resident of Scotland. I cannot see that a creditor taking a Scottish debtor to court in Scotland, could then rely on English law in that case.

[make them aktiv runners]

There's few CCA's about as we all know. An old one I have says it is English law unless you lived in Scotland at the point of signing in which case Scottish law applies.

[rory32]

Yup, if you live in Scotland they would have to adhere to Scottish law. There have been instances in the past where fiancial institutions have been bitten by trying to enforce terms and conditions that are only applicable in English Law to Scottish consumers.

[dannyboy660]

Yup, if you live in Scotland they would have to adhere to Scottish law. There have been instances in the past where fiancial institutions have been bitten by trying to enforce terms and conditions that are only applicable in English Law to Scottish consumers.

 

 

Many years ago, in a dark and distant era when I used to hide under the couch if there was a knock at the door, I had a letter from a bailiff company (Bristow & Sutor??, I don't clearly remember now) warning that they were intending to visit my home and remove items of my property "situate in England and Wales..." etc, etc. as instructed by a debt collection agency.

 

This was at an address in Lanarkshire, Scotland.

 

"Strange" I thought, "Rather a step up from the usual threats, but how can they remove goods situate in England and Wales, if you live in Scotland??....surely they need a Court order first anyway??"

 

I ignored it, and nothing happened. It's one of lifes events which encouraged me to learn a little more about the law and how things work.

 

English and Scottish law do differ quite widely on such issues, and for that reason many contracts, usually in the small print, will say something like 'by signing this agreement you agree to it being executed under English Law' - which could then apply to residents of Scotland too, under certain conditions.

 

It's one of those things you need to check up on in your contract, before you let battle commence.

[Vampyra]

I thought rather than keep several threads open I would have a general cover all thread for certain bits.

 

As of this morning CapQuest 1 & 2, Lowell 1 & 2, Cabot and Fredrickson International have ALL gone into default on the CCA request. Just waiting til Friday for 1st Credit to follow suit.

 

I must admit I am a little stunned and just hope this goes all the way to them committing.

 

*has a little jumpy round dance, then re-composes herself*.

 

Ahem....

[Zimmie]

Got everything crossed for you Vamp

[Vampyra]

Thanks Zimmie!

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[thinksmart]

Guys, everyone's gone a bit quiet lately. I'm hoping someone may have some answers for me on some questions...

 

Does anyone know:-

 

1. Does a creditor (or assignee creditor) need the original paper copy of a credit agreement in order to prove a debt? In other words would a photocopy or repriduction rom micro-fiche be sufficient in Court?

 

2. Does an assignee creditor need to have an original copy of the Deed of Assignment in order to win a case in Court? Or is just having sent out a notice of the assignment sufficient?

 

Like many others I've fallen into the trap of taking advice hastily and sending off CCA 1974 requests and CPR Part 18 requests for further information some time ago and am now begnning to think it may have been a mistake. Its easy to rush in headlong in the desire to get the thing put to bed early and cut the stress and worry. Eben asking for documents is rarely satisfactory as creditors will regularly take an age to supply and can even get away with introducing evidence on the day at Court. I can see the wisdom in simplying waiting to see what they have on the day but at the same time this is dangerous as waiting til the last minute loses opportunity to reach a cheap and early settlement and also allows the creditor's costs to climb - not nice if they turn up at court with all the evidence they need and then get an order against you for a few thousand in costs as well. What's the answer? Beats me! I think case histories are king - anyone got any good ones?

[thinksmart]

Yikes having re-read that last post my typing has frightened me - haven't been drinking - honestly (hasn't come to that yet!)

 

Anyone know much about rules of evidence? Eg can someone in the employ of an assignee creditor (or their solicitor) give a witness statement stating facts about an agreement that he can not possibly know in person from first hand experience?

[Jaranius]

xx

[dannyboy660]

HI,

 

Yes, I've gone a bit quiet because I've run out of ideas really!! I don't have first hand experience of these situations, but I have long been a harbinger of doom on the CCA request issue. Many seem to think that if a CCA doesn't appear within 12 days - that's it, home and dry. I, on the other hand, am convinced it won't stop another agency pursuing at a later date if and when something does turn up. Unless you get something in writing saying CCA does not exist or is no longer available, there's nothing to stop them. The fact many posters on these threads hear nothing at all, and then go away thinking it's all over worries me a bit as they could get an unpleasant surprise in the future. I could be wrong, but we're talking about money here......

 

I would like to see them forced into court to prove ownership, particularly those who claim to own a debt, having purchased 'charged off' in bulk for peanuts. I am convinced they can be beaten as the process is completely illogical and potentially costly to the taxpayer, while private companies profit. Not fair play - not very 'British' at all!!!

 

Take a little time to study the posts of Richard Spud, he seems to know his stuff and he's provided some serious food for thought. You may find you can apply it to your own situation, and suddenly the way forward gets a little clearer.

 

All the best.

[Vampyra]

I agree with Dannyboy.

 

Just because they don't prove they have any of the correct documentation within the time frame does not mean it won't turn up in a Court situation. However, the matter of Disclosure would not be viewed favourably by a presiding Judge, if, for example, a CCA request was made in 2007 and they did nothing until 2010 when suddenly the original CA turns up on Court day.

 

There is a moot point in this situation that a debtor makes a legitimate request and pays for that request and it is not furnished, only to be used as a whipping post on Court day.

 

This is where I think an SAR is also valuable because this can show allegedly sold debts and "charged off" debts which is where there starts to become room for negotiation if you are in a position to.

 

There are interesting processes here:

 

The "charged off" debts and what they really cost.

The cost to the tax payer.

What legallity there is in chasing and recieving payment on a debt that is effectively 'written off' in tax terms.

Claiming ownership of a debt, in writing, that you don't own.

 

Requesting a CCA works well when the Creditor/DCA sends you an application form. Not that it has been tried, as far as a I know, but I guess one could, at a Court stage, claim they were trying to deliberately mislead you by sending an application form and not a CA - especially if they turn up at Court with the original.

 

However, until across the board of the Legal system it is accepted that a huge amount of us were mis-sold these debts in the first place due to incorrectly worded agreements, no agreements and the incorrect use of penalty charges, plus the subsequent threats and harassment from DCA's who probably have not business chasing a debt 90% of the time; I guess one just has to hope for a sympathetic Judge on the day.

 

I hope that's a bit clearer and helpful for you.