Hi i'm wondering about a debt I have with a car finance company, its for 3060 quid, they had the car back over 6 years ago, an the debt is no longer on my credit file, what i'm wondering is.. I have just been looking through my credit file on experian and they have done various searches to find me but my date of birth is wrong on them, so i dragged the original finance agreement out only to find it is the same, they have 20/02/71 not 20/02/75, do to this being wrong could i get the debt written off??

so to sum up... wrong D.O.B (can it be written off)???
over 6 years ( can they still chase me for it)???

PS yes i'm very aware that I am wrong tryin to get out of a debt i owe, but the finance company where terrible to deal with.. when I first got the car I had 14 days to cancel, but after trying to get out of it on day 2 because the car was a heap they just kept saying they would get someone to call me back day after day, which they did.. on day 15 unfortunately.. an then said I can't do anything cus its over 14 days. an reckoned they had no record of me calling them, hence why i'd like to get out of this debt hopefully with them not getting there money..

 

anyone????

 

nobody??

 

They are obviously looking for you so if you stick your head up and try and fight the debt they will have found you.

If you want to keep the 3060 keep your head down.

.

 

wish i could help mate, but I'm not sure. I dont want to give advice that can be wrong.

hope it all works out.

 

You can very probably forget about trying to get out of it because of the incorrect date of birth. You're clearly the person who made the agreement so the chances of using that to squirm your way out of the debt is negligible.

However having said the above, when was the last time you acknowledged this debt?

If you have made no acknowledgement of this debt then after six years it is statute barred and totally unenforceable. Ensure that you have made no acknowledgement or payment toward this debt within the last six years - if the creditor contacts you after the six years in question, just write back to them informing of the debt's statute barred status and that they have no further legal right to pursue the debt.

 

threre is also something about the limitations act, makes it illegal for them to persue the debt after six years

 

Its the same thing as what I just wrote. Six years in England and Wales, five years in Scotland.

 

There's loads of ways of 'getting out of it'.

Have you been making payments or acknowledged the debt? If not then I would send them a brief notice:

"Notice of Dishonour

Dear Sirs,

Please note that your claim dated xx/xx/xxxx is dishonourable. In accordance with the Limitation Act 1980, the debt you are demanding payment for is barred from enforcement as it has not been acknowledged since xx/xx/xxxx, which is more than 6 years ago.

You are not only comitting an offence under this act, but also under OFT's Debt Collection Guidelines by continuing to pursue me / attempt to enforce this debt.

Any further demands that I receive will become subject to a charge of Ł250 per occurrence for my time and for distress; and shall result in official complaints to all relevant regulatory bodies. Also be advised that I retract consent for you to contact me by telephone regarding this matter and that any attempt to do so will result in a charge to the originator of Ł100 per occurrence.

Please note you may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under s.10 of the Data Protection Act (1998) to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

Should you refuse to comply, you must within thirty (30) days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends. Should you not respond within thirty (30) days I expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

Whether you agree by response or by acquiescence, confirmation that you have complied with the notice will be required within forty-four (44) days of receipt of this notice. If confirmation is not received within that period then a charge of Ł250 will apply for each demand, which shall be sent weekly thereafter, beginning on the forty-fifth (45th) day, until a satisfactory response is received.

All the above charges will be payable on demand and subject to a penalty of three-times (3x) their value (in addition to the principal) if cleared funds are not received within seven (7) days.

Without malice or mischeif, in sincerity and honour,
your name"


or, if you have acknowledged it, there are two ways - common law and statute - of getting them to go away. A combination of the two that's worked for me so far is:

"NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

Dear Sirs,

In reference to your letter dated xx-xx-xxxx, I wish to advise you that your letter has been conditionally accepted on proof of claim, which may be substantiated by forwarding the following proof of claim and verification of debt details within 14 days of receipt of this notice to the address above:

1) Proof of claim that there exists a valid legal/lawful contract in the actual flesh and blood name of *your name*, duly signed by both parties;

2) Proof of claim that the aforementioned instrument was breached and precise details of how;

3) Proof of claim that you are the current holder of the aforementioned instrument, original and unaltered;

4) Validation of the debt – verified accounts and ledger showing the loss;

5) A verified invoice signed by the plaintiff/claimant.

If no written response is received within fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Conditional Acceptance then it will be assumed that there exists no proof of claim as requested and that no lawful debt therefore exists. That assumption will carry force of law under the principals of tacit agreement / consent by aquiescence and be subject to lawful, irrevocable estoppel.

I fully intend to pay this debt on condition that the claim is substantiated as per the above.

Without malice or mischeif, in sincerity and honour,
*your name*

- they wont be able to produce the original contract and won't be able to substantiate the loss as credit is fictional money; and these are completely lawful demands.

pm for any more advice...

Chris

 

Chris is the man - LOL.

 

My mate's having a right laugh with a company called Cabbot at the moment.... they are chasing her for a 17 year old debt that she had when she was 18. The best of it is, the debt was taken to court and she got a CCJ for it..... and Cabbot are threatening her with another CCJ for the same debt 17 years later...... I think not somehow....

 

if you sent me a letter like thus, i would not only just shit myself, but pled into driving off a bridge. that is some fucking shit right there.

One clever man But how can you make them make payments to you though? i know you can get your own debt collection, but would this stand up in court?

 

as been said, statute barred.

Dont even reply.

technically if you reply they may try and assume contact has been made and try to pursue debt/harass you. if you ignore them, then nothing can happen. They wouldnt even get the paperwork past the court clerks.

 

whether it's barred by Limitation or not depends on whether there has been contact during the last 6 years. it doesn't apply to any debt older than 6 years, only debts that have not been acknowledged over the previous 6 years. saying anything to them, even on the phone, other than "i have no recollection or awareness of this debt. please send me proof of claim or leave me alone" can be construed as acknowledgment so limitation is not the best defence.

a notice of conditional acceptance puts the onus on them to proove that you owe them money. it's almost impossible for them to do this because they never actually put any money on the line - your application is used as a 'promissary note', just like a bank note, to create the funds - so they have sustained no loss. it also removes 'controversy', which is all that a court can adjudicate on in civil matters, so the case would never get heard if they attempted to pursue you in court

Chris

(For more advise from more experienced people check out www.fmotl.com/forum.)