Yes, I too received my first letter from this bunch yesterday. They are superbly optimistic; they have given me 7 days to pay an alleged account which has been outstanding, with no payment or written acknowledgement on my part, for at least nine and a half years Ho Ho! I love the use of ALL CAPS, the illegible signature with no human name, the confusion over the exact name of the department which sent the letter, and the fact they have somehow managed to get the words "Old Court House" into their address. Scary (not)!

I had exactly the same Meritforce letter (visit within 10 days, pursuer AK, need to call MH, signed by"Doorstep Collections Manager") sent to me on 9th July this year. I ignored it,as usual. Meritforce did NOT turn up. MH sent a "REDUCED SETTLEMENT OFFER" letter on 5th August & a further letter trying to set up a payment plan on 2nd September. They broke the pattern by not writing to me at the start of October. I do not expect to hear from them again. From past experience, this is where they will give up

No, to continue to attempt to collect a statute-barred debt, after they have been told that it is statute-barred, puts them in breach of OFT guidelines. While the guidelines are not actually law, the law is that Muck Hall do need an OFT licence to continue in business, and so breach the guidelines at their peril. At this point someone usually posts the name of their local trading standards officer and suggests making a complaint EDIT: It's Alan Stewart at East Ayrshire Trading Standards.

Ignore them completely. They still do not know for sure that you exist at the address they have. Sending a CCA request, SAR, or SB letter will confirm for them that you do.

Once it is statute-barred NOTHING can make it un-statute-barred. A written acknowledgement CAN reset the clock , if not already statute-barred. I don't believe that emails can count as such although I may be wrong. One thing I have learnt, both from these forums and from personal experience. There are no absolute truths as far as the law goes. The law can say one thing, but it seems that a contrary judge or lawyer can pretend it says something else. The main principle seems, for them, to be "what is legal is whatever they can get away with", and a good lawyer seems to be one who can bend the interpretation of the law to suit his own purposes, and who is able to convince others to accept that interpretation. So much of our social contract is based on smoke and mirrors.

Found them! And the guidelines state; The guidelines then go on to make no distinction of the type of debt.

You can read the guidelines here; http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf They apply to companies licensed under the CCA 1974, but are certainly not just restricted to "CCA 1974" debts,otherwise a DCA could use the fact that an agreement was missing as a loophole in order to avoid following the guidelines.. So.... do Stirling Park hold a license? If they do then they have to follow the guidelines,

Now you are having a laugh! If not, then remember that there is nobody there to get annoyed. To them you are just an entry in a database stored in a computer. Computers don't get annoyed; they have no soul. Neither has Mackenzie Hall.

I'd say no; do not take the CAB advice. That's because to do so would seem to possibly cause more pain for you out of proportion to any benefit in doing so. If you are making repayments more than you can afford then stop or reduce them, even for non-disputed debts. Priorities should be Council Tax, anything secured, such as a mortgage, & utilities. My understanding is that were the lenders succesfully to take you to court, you would only be ordered to pay at a rate you could actually afford. Bear in mind I have no actual experience of this (my own strategy was to ignore creditors completely); I am merely repeating what I have learnt here.

Maybe online banking is the answer here. My own bank account has statements online going back 6 years. Free and easy!

These forums do seem strangely quiet. Has there been a knobbling? So, you have an original copy that was incomplete, with no interest rates? I'd say that was completely unenforcable. Stop paying them. It might be interesting to send a CCA request anyway, see if you can catch them out telling lies about it.

Sounds like they are grasping at straws.

As you will have seen on the link that was posted, their name is "Philips Collection Services" and NOT "Philips Specialist Bailiff And Debt Recovery Agents" They deliberately put those words at the top of their headed paper to intentionaly mislead and instil fear. There is no excuse for it. It is not their name. What they are doing is against OFT guidelines, and you can supposedly complain to the OFT about it. What astonishes me is that some other government departments and agencies seem willing to be associated with such a seedy organisation, using it to collect alleged debts.

I don't understand how it was possible for you as a resident of Scotland to get a CCJ from an English court. See here... Can I be sued in England? | free help from Govan Law Centre , Glasgow It quotes from "CIVIL JURISDICTION & JUDGMENTS ACT 1982" and higlights... (4) Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled or any court having jurisdiction under rule 2(i).

Ha Ha! They will have to wait a bit longer than that! Just to re-iterate what others have said... If you were contemplating talking to them on the telephone tonight, don't do it. Not tonight. Not ever.