Just revisiting an old post with a new development. This Black Horse unsecured personal loan was covered by PPI. It was a joint loan. One of the parties to the loan lost her job in 2007 and claimed using said PPI. Black Horse, as always, failed to act on the claim and eventually dismissed it though loss of employment was covered by the PPI (of course). After writing (years ago) to the lender to put the account into dispute no further contact was made with the original lender or with any of the many DCAs who attempted coercion other than to state that the account remained in dispute with the original lender. We recently received correspondence from the original lender offering a settlement of the PPI to which we have made no response including not signing the acceptance nor returning the same to the original lender. We have now received the first of two cheques in the sum of the PPI offers to which neither of us have responded. I imagine that the second cheque will arrive shortly. As we haven't responded to any offer then do these cheques constitute an unconditional gift? Would it be prejudicial to bank the cheques? In view of the fact that there has been no substantive action in respect of the disputed account since 2007 am I correct in now taking the view that the original loan (which should, in any event, have been cleared by the PPI) is now Statute Barred and therefore must be struck off? Ar there any further actions which we should take in respect of this joint, unsecured load and its PPI? Thanks, in anticipation.

I believe that the last payment made by me on the accounts was mid-2007. I don't believe that the insurer ever paid anything, as the balances still appear to be the 2007 balances. Am I right in thinking that the accounts become time expired after 6 years with no activity? How does that work if the balance has been sold to one DCA after another?

Not certain where exactly to post this so here seems to be not unreasonable. I have a couple of (well old) loan agreements both of which were covered by PPI. I became unemployed through ill health in 1997 for a protracted period of time and submitted claims through the lenders for the PPI (sold by them) to be invoked to discharge the loan balance within the terms of the contracts. For unspecified reasons the loans still have the outstanding balances on them and I am continually harassed by one DCA after another. So far as I am concerned the correct action was the proper discharge of the debts under the terms of the insurance agreements. Since 2007 I have been subjected to continual harassment and my "credit score" flags up adversely because of breaches of contract by the lenders/insurers. I'd like to get these monkeys off my back so would appreciate any guidance as to the proper procedure for doing this (bearing in mind that my own attempts to resolve matters (writing to the lenders and insurers) hasn't borne fruit. Ideally I'd also appreciate some recompense for six years of harassment and the the negative impact on my ability to obtain credit.

delete duplicate

In addition, I would suggest a SAR to the Halifax. On what basis do they hold incomplete records (other than incompetence)? Also check out the latest version of the OFT Codes of Practice which covers SDs by DCAs since the guidelines have been tightened, somewhat. There is also excellent guidance on this forum about not acknowledging that you accept that there is a debt and that the matter is in serious dispute on that basis alone.

CQ is desperate to get an actual signature to the extent that it fails, persistently, to comply with letters of authority signed (as understood by the Courts) by their "victim". Good for them because their actions amount to criminal harassment - an indictable offence. This forum generally advises never providing a DCA with a handwritten signature whilst CQ will accept nothing less - to their cost, one suspects. My advice (which is generally worthless) is simply to ignore letters of harassment (keeping them all, of course) and just to let them keep on digging. What do others think?

Del

This raises a potentially interesting question. Being that writing off a debt as a bad debt (I imagine) must by recorded on the personal record of the borrower (because the OC would otherwise still believe it to be live) then would this not be part of disclosure under an SAR and would the Information Commissioner have encountered this at some point?

Doing that but the PPI is a separate contract with a different company. The OC, in the meantime has sold the disputed load to a DCA. One presumes that DCAs buy these things "in good faith" and may feel they have an entitlement. My thrust is that if some "reputable" lender has sold a "debt" whilst it is in dispute and takes the attitude of "speak to the DCA" then clearly one would wish to know how much the DCA paid "in good faith" because that is what one would be talking to the DCA about. The PPI repayment cannot be assumed.

Oops

Whilst not trying to lead my reader in any way I have some dim recollection (mine are mostly quite dim) that there was such a provision in the Consumer Credit Act or another statute relating to lending agreements. If we can nail this down then we may well be a huge warren of very happy bunnies indeed. But as the Spartans said, "If!"

Imagine the situation...... OC has sold off a debt because, for example, they reneged on the PPI and the alleged debtor was rude enough to think that s/he had a legitimate claim. Whatever. The new owner has bought the alleged debt as part of a job lot and at a discounted rate. The new owner then starts chasing the alleged debtor. In statute, is there a mechanism whereby the new owner can be compelled to disclose how much the "debt" was bought for and thus what is the value of the alleged debt, as it now exists?

It works fine - and the PDF is now on my Desktop. Many thanks.

Hi SF1961... Thanks for getting back. Please note that the link to the OFT PDF (in full in my email version of your reply and on the above post) is responding with a 404 error on the OFT site - they've probably moved the page. Certainly will involve the OFT because CQ is ignoring the OFT Guidelines. Will also draw the attention of the author to the criminal law being breached since the author is the lawbreaker. I believe that the, "I was only following orders," defence was last used (unsuccessfully) at Nuremburg. Of course, I may be wrong.

So when Cr@pQuest refuse to acknowledge proper legal authority to deal with a specified person (signed in the legal sense, as opposed to a handwritten signature) and, despite such authority and very clear OFT guidelines, persist in harassing whom they claim to be a debtor and when the alleged debt is a mystery to the alleged debtor and, in any event, is time expired what is the best course of action? Should I :- Send them an SAR? Refer the matter to the OFT? Refer the matter to police? Take some other action (suggestions always welcome).