Yes, it is effectively, contracting out HMRC debt management

HMRC never 'sell' debts, so you can pay directly via the website. You cannot 'owe' a tax debt to a DCA

Plodder Tom is spot on. Whereas it is easy to get angry when a bailiff turns up and asks you to prove you own your personal possessions, remember that being told that Mr X is not here, or that he doesn't own Y is something they hear every day. Given that you are the one likely to suffer the grief, I would be ready to prove your car is your own etc. Better still, why not get hold of the Magistrates Court and/or bailiff if one has been appointed, and explain the situation before anyone comes knocking? Judging by what you say, these are fines for offences and not outstanding Visa bills etc - these are never written off, unlike civil debts.

I don't quite understand this one. You say in your first post that you paid the loan off? Then you say they are claiming you owe £700.... Is that right?

This is an interesting thread. The comments about refunded PPI strike me as a little odd though. By making the claim is there not an implicit acknowledgement of the debt at that point? I would think that does indeed reset the SB clock. i know others posters suggest otherwise, but has this actually been tested?

All If amac31 was paying another DCA up to 2009, which they suggest they were, and if the account didnt go into arrears until late 2001, then I doubt it will be statute barred. I think a different approach will be required

And I never suggested otherwise. I think the OP needs to bear in mind that if Provident CAN prove the debt she may be missing the opportunity to come to an agreement.

No, my post is what I want it to be.

These are NOT the beneficial owners of the bank. They are the the stock-broking firms who hold the stock on behalf of their investors.

Just as an aside, Provident CAN offer you a new loan to pay the old one if it is interest free. Provident loans show up, on your credit file so if you pay back the debt it will be positive information. However I agree you must check that the debt is valid first. Additionally I agree that they should not have discussed your affairs with someone else. But you really need to be sure the debt is unenforceable before telling them 'no'.

Cash advances usually attract interest from the transaction date, but if you borrowed £100 for a week it will or he much. Don't forget that cash advances usually have a small handling fee too.

Oh... whatever....

I dont agree with that at all. It depends on the firm. A small local practice would be unlikely to, but a bigger one.. However as I have been saying, an AML search will only confirm an address/ID - it won't give any further details. I just don't think that the OP needs to worry about the search, but should be more concerned with the wider picture - i.e. what is this firm planning to do..?

I have had 'previous address links' removed from my file but it is not easy. Sometimes the CRA will remove the link after six years if there is no live data at the old address and then the very same CRA will declined to remove other links saying they remain indefinitely! the Info Commissioner says that after six years they should go so you can ask for the link to be removed. They do not do it automatically I'm afraid.

I understand that, but my point is that beyond the info the accountant gets an AML search is not going to harm anyone's credit profile. And we do not know the terms of any agreement between the OP and the accountant which may allow for CRA searches if a debt is accrued. I think I am saying that the type of search is largely academic.

A gas bill is not a regulated credit agreement, but it strikes me that BG should still have warned you and given you an opportunity to settle before putting the default there. Any thoughts anyone?

Hopefully you will get this sorted out. I would have thought that at the point of 'voluntary termination' the agreement was effectively terminated (possibly with an os debt still) and should go six years afterwards. I would guess that this is an automated system keeping your file updated and your letter, assuming they don't just ignore it, should resolve the matter.

I cannot say why they are searching, however a 'money laundering search' is not as ominous as it sounds. It is intended for a potential lender, or deposit taker, to confirm the identity of their intended customer - i.e. you are who you say you are, and that you live where you say you do. This is a statutory requirement and is something that we are all subject to in one form or another (it does not have to be done via a credit agency). This type of search is NOT visible to other potential credit providers. However, having said that this type of search is not intended for debt collection which this probably relates to - there is a different type of search for that. BUT you may want to consider that, if you do genuinely owe them money and that they are as a consequence searching your file to see if you are still there, you may want to leave the AML search in place, rather than have it replaced with a debt collection search. In some circumstances, debt collection searches ARE visible to other searchers.I think we should all pick our battles where we can.

Correct

I am not convinced that any advice given here is going to be that valid - not because people do not want to help but simply because the full facts of the case as it stands are not known. There are a whole host of considerations. I am afraid your friend needs to way tho hear from the DWP as to whether they will prosecute and then if they do, take legal advice at that point. Anything else is speculation.

It would help if you could clarify if the original loan was in fact paid off as you suggest it was, and whose name it was in. If it was just yours then as I said above this whole thing is a nonsense anyway, SB or not, because your wife never owed any money

Absolutely. I meant that as a warning!

Any payments of interest over £50 in a tax year are automatically notified to HMRC by the bank in question. IN practice you are not talking about huge sums here in the grand scheme of things. How much extra you pay depends on whether the £2500 you get is the net or gross figure

If a debt is statute barred then it is statute barred and nothing can change that - even if you signed a form. If you are sure that the debt was paid then pay them nothing - you could always ask for a statement of account showing that the amount is outstanding, as that would probably help you work out when the last payment was made If the original debt was in your name and your wife signed the form for the new one, then it is a nonsense anyway.

Hold on here... there is no suggestion that the debt has been assigned to 1st Credit is there? I get the impression that they are just acting as an agent for Vanquis at this point.. 1st Credit don't just do debt purchase