Debt collection agencies

MCE have just written to one of the guys on my Ducati forum informing him that with immediate affect his excess has increased from £250 to £750. Needless to say he was gonna be writting to them to discuss the matter. What a bunch of cowboys.

My insurance for fully comp went from 300 to 1300 in one year, so I dropped down into third party only which costed only 130. Then the next year the fully comp was 200, and the third party stayed the same.

I know very smart people with PhDs in maths figure these numbers out, but... like, plus or minus 400% year on year?? It sort of makes you wonder.

But this was increasing the excess 3 months into a 12 month policy, surely when you take out a policy the terms and conditions etc apply for the full 12 months.

Originally Posted by e.d.

But this was increasing the excess 3 months into a 12 month policy, surely when you take out a policy the terms and conditions etc apply for the full 12 months.

oh right... well that would seem to be breach of contract.
I am sure they will have something that he signed saying that the law doesn't apply to them, along with a thing saying that law that says the law applies to everyone also doesn't apply to them.

Originally Posted by philipMac

oh right... well that would seem to be breach of contract.
I am sure they will have something that he signed saying that the law doesn't apply to them, along with a thing saying that law that says the law applies to everyone also doesn't apply to them.

I suppose they'd also have a clause about "Unfair terms" not applying to them as well.

Before Ed mentions it.

Originally Posted by Baph

I suppose they'd also have a clause about "Unfair terms" not applying to them as well.

Before Ed mentions it.

Time for dusting down the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Schedule 2 para 1 clauses j, k and l. This is one of the better pieces of legislation from Brussels, and the sad thing is that they aren't very well known. I have used them many times to force a supplier to back off.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

I bet you just copy & paste that don't you?

Hell no!!!! I know it backwards!!! I do use the Regs quite a lot so I know them quite well.

Originally Posted by Ed

Er hang on.

Even if you did owe them the money, debt actions are statute-barred after 6 years. In other words, they lost the right to sue on it 4 years ago. It is now completely unenforceable.

Tell them to feck off and also tell them that you are reporting their menacing and intimidatory behaviour to the Trading Standards Department.

The insurer will know that the debt is statute-barred, so they have no right chasing you over it.

Oooooh, now that I didn't know

I do know that the policy wasn't claimed on, as I'm still too cheap for fully comp now and certainly was back ten years ago when I was even more skint.

It may well have been an installment policy and I may well have owed them, if only they would tell me why then I might be open to it. It took a good year after all was cancelled that they came to me with it in the first place and have never offered any explanation. To be honest, after all this time, I really can't remember anymore.

Bit of googling suggests the "Limitation Act 1980" is the six year bit? Many, many thanks; I'm guessing it's worth bypassing the agencies now and just going straight for the alleged creditor.

Huge thanks Ed

EDIT:

Google bits (may be right or wrong, quoted from "interpretation" sources rather than the act):

Out of the blue a letter arrives from the original creditor or a debt collection agency asking you to make a payment.
You can argue that the creditor is out of time or “statute barred” from taking you to court for this debt:
if

• The creditor has not already obtained a judgment against you (nope, they haven't)

and

• You, or any one else owing the money (on a debt in joint names) have not made a payment on the debt during the last six years (nope, I haven't)

and

• You have not written to the creditor admitting you owe the debt during the last six years. (written to them asking why, yes; written to them admitting I owe, most definitely not)

...

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has issued Debt Collection guidance which looks at whether a debt is being collected fairly. They say:

• It is unfair to pursue the debt if you have heard nothing from the creditor for 6 years. (doesn't apply to my case, as heard from their various agents about three times a year every year; agents change every couple of years)
• The OFT thinks it is fair to keep trying to recover the debt if the creditor has been in regular contact with you during this time. (hmm, as above)
• It is unfair to mislead you be saying the debt is still legally recoverable when it isn’t. (not a lawyer, or more specifically, the presiding magistrate, so can't say for sure, though would seem the "debt" isn't legally recoverable)
• It is unfair to keep pressing for payment after you have told them you won’t be paying the debt because it is statute barred. (not told them this specifically yet as didn't know, but certainly never said anything other than "why?")

Yes it's the Limitation Act. Any enforcementaction on a debt has to be brought within 6 years - unless, as you indicate, you have acknowledged that you are liable on it.

None of the exceptions applies. Write to them and tell them to go hang, that they are harrassing you and that their actions are blatantly unlawful and in breach of OFT guidance. Say if they do it again you will report them to the Financial Services Ombudsman. Oh, and write a letter of complaint to their Managing Director about their shabby tactics. And don't pay them a bean.

Incidentally you'd be most unlikely to find a magistrate in a county court. District Judge more like