@asknationwide 2 old Nationwide accounts & various DCA's chasing them

[concorde]

Hi

 

You've told them once.

 

Do one last letter to them...very strong

 

Along the lines of

 

You seem to persist in your view that this alledged debt is not Stat Barred. I would advise you that I have reported your outfit to (Everyone).

 

As far as I am concerned the matter is closed and I will not be entering into any further dialogue with you. Should I receive any further comunication from you I shall be issuing in court against you and your organisation.

 

(Don't tell them what you will be issuing for)

 

Regards

 

ims

 

I have told them more that once regarding this account but still they keep on,

 

as in my previous thread I have already reported them to the OFT who replied that they would look into my complaint.

 

I wiil send them another letter on the lines you have mentioned but I do not think that the idiots will take any notice.

[ims21]

Well, of course you could just totally ignore them!

 

Some like to wind them up a bit and some like to ignore. Personally I like to let them know my position.

 

Regards

 

ims

[cerberusalert]

Sounds to me like Mr Oyedepo is a paid up and practicing buffoon!

 

ims

 

I must get some specs, I keep reading that name as Didicoy.

[concorde]

Obviously he's not aware that it is now July 2011., so it's SB by at least 2 months even if that payment was made.

 

meaningless drivel, you would have needed to make a written admission not them contacting you.

 

Since sending the last thread my wife and I have just realised that the so called account these people mention

and the dates refering to a Nationwide account this was closed in 2003/2004 so where have they got the info from?

[ims21]

Another one of these Phantom Jobbies.

 

Don't worry

 

ims

[cerberusalert]

As advised in my previous correspondance dated 17th June 2011, Nationwide have advised that a payment of £215.56 was applied to your account on 13th May 2005 and this was withdrawn on 20th May 2005.

Nationwide have also advised that a letter was issued to you on 1st June 2005 before your account was assigned to Roxburghe.I can also confirm that a letter was sent to you by Willen Collections on 20th May 2011.

The above doesn't add up either. the last payment was made on 13th May 2005 why would a letter which was sent to you by Willen Collections on 20th May 2011 7 days after the alleged debt became SB be deemed as restarting the clock?

[concorde]

I think that you have got a bit confused with dates here,

 

dont you mean 6 years later(not 7 days after).

 

Furthermore I did not have an account with Nationwide in 2005 it was closed in 2003/2004.

[cerberusalert]

The above doesn't add up either. the last payment was made on 13th May 2005 why would a letter which was sent to you by Willen Collections on 20th May 2011 7 days after the alleged debt became SB be deemed as restarting the clock?[/Q

I think that you have got a bit confused with dates here,dont you mean 6 years later(not 7 days after).Furthermore I did not have an account with Nationwide in 2005 it was closed in 2003/2004.

 

I wrote 7 days after the alleged debt became SB = 6 years + 7 days.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I think that the company is relying on OFT

Guidance section 2 .14 (b) para.2

''If a creditor has been in regular contact with

a debtor before the the debt is statute barred, then we DO NOT

consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt.''

 

This I believe would depend on ad Judges opinion of ''regular contact''

Once a year or what, personally I would one or twice a year regular,

or maybe 3-4 times over the 6 year period.

 

Their premise would have to be tested in court.

[ims21]

I think that the company is relying on OFT

Guidance section 2 .14 (b) para.2

''If a creditor has been in regular contact with

a debtor before the the debt is statute barred, then we DO NOT

consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt.''

 

This I believe would depend on ad Judges opinion of ''regular contact''

Once a year or what, personally I would one or twice a year regular,

or maybe 3-4 times over the 6 year period.

 

Their premise would have to be tested in court.

 

Hi Brig

 

This prompts me to ask a question.

 

I could understand regular contact if there was correspondence going back and forth but here it seems that the correspondence has been one sided. I mean that it is the creditor and others from the same side that keep writing. It doesn't appear that correspondence has been sent by the OP. To my thinking this wouldn't constitute "contact" but more in the way of "trying to contact" or "pestering".

 

Or am I barking up the wrong tree? (quite possible of course)

 

Regards

 

ims

[concorde]

I think that the company is relying on OFT

Guidance section 2 .14 (b) para.2

''If a creditor has been in regular contact with

a debtor before the the debt is statute barred, then we DO NOT

consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt.''

 

This I believe would depend on ad Judges opinion of ''regular contact''

Once a year or what, personally I would one or twice a year regular,

or maybe 3-4 times over the 6 year period.

 

Their premise would have to be tested in court.

 

No regular communication regarding the account has been made in over 6 years so the above does not come into force.

[ims21]

Hi concorde

 

I think you're safe.

 

I think we are just getting a couple of genralities cleared up.

 

Regards

 

ims

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi IMS,

I have seen a number of these situations regarding

contact and would like to see this full tested.

 

A few years back I had a case before a Registrar on very

similar lines as this one,I challenged the creditors

premise that even though the defendant had not replied

to letters the fact that ''some'' correspondence''

had been sent to the defendant this constituted sufficient

contact ( 5 letters in 6 years).

The Registrar also observed that the defendants failure to respond

constituted a deliberate attempt to avoid their responsibilities.

Case lost with costs.

[ims21]

Hi IMS,

I have seen a number of these situations regarding

contact and would like to see this full tested.

 

A few years back I had a case before a Registrar on very

similar lines as this one,I challenged the creditors

premise that even though the defendant had not replied

to letters the fact that ''some'' correspondence''

had been sent to the defendant this constituted sufficient

contact ( 5 letters in 6 years).

The Registrar also observed that the defendants failure to respond

constituted a deliberate attempt to avoid their responsibilities.

Case lost with costs.

 

Hi Brig

 

Thank you for the info.....I'm obliged

 

Regards

 

ims

[concorde]

Hi concorde

 

I think you're safe.

 

I think we are just getting a couple of genralities cleared up.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Hi Ims,

I am getting a bit confused

here,just to make it clear MKRR are stating that they got there info from Nationwide in 2005,

we did not have an account with Nationwide in 2005

the account had been closed in 2003/2004 so how have they got this info.

 

If I had to I would like them to take me to court and see who has that last laugh.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

IMHO you should SAR Nationwide, if have not done so.

[ims21]

Hi Ims, I am getting a bit confused here,just to make it clear MKRR are stating that they got there info from Nationwide in 2005,we did not have an account with Nationwide in 2005 the account had been closed in 2003/2004 so how have they got this info.If I had to I would like them to take me to court and see who has that last laugh.

 

Hi

 

Like I say, I personally don't think you've got anything to worry about.

 

A SAR would of course give you chapter and verse.

 

Regards

 

ims

[concorde]

Hi

 

Like I say, I personally don't think you've got anything to worry about.

 

A SAR would of course give you chapter and verse.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Why should I have to pay out £10 for a SAR when I have had no contact with the creditor in over 6 years.Its up to this DCA to prove how they have got the info.

[ims21]

As I said, SAR would give you chapter & verse.....you don't have to do it of course and as you say let the dca prove it.

 

If they took you to court the onus of proof is on them....but in my opinion they aint gonna do it.

 

Regards

 

ims

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

OK leave it them and leave your self open

to what ever they come up with without

having the information to fight back!!!

[concorde]

As I said, SAR would give you chapter & verse.....you don't have to do it of course and as you say let the dca prove it.

 

If they took you to court the onus of proof is on them....but in my opinion they aint gonna do it.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

I must say that I totally agree with you Ims,so I am now going to let sleeping dogs lie before I have a hernia.

[concorde]

OK leave it them and leave your self open

to what ever they come up with without

having the information to fight back!!!

 

I think I have enough info to be able to defend myself if I need to.I do not bow to idiots like this.

[ims21]

I must say that I totally agree with you Ims,so I am now going to let sleeping dogs lie before I have a hernia.

 

At least I won't be guilty of causing a hernia

 

Regards

 

ims

[dx100uk]

gone phishing...........

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Cheeky:fish2: