PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

[PJ69]

Quick rundown of events so far:

5th April - CCA request sent to Intrum Justitia re a debt they had been collecting on behalf of GUS, which GUS have also put a default on my credit file - never received default notice [letter signed for 10 April]

20th April - Letter received from Intrum Justitia informing me that they could not supply me with the requested information and that they were returning my account to GUS, to whom I should address further correspondence/queries, and that I would not hear from them again [result as far as I'm concerned! lol]

Standing order payments cancelled to Intrum.

24th April - CCA request sent to GUS [signed for 26 April]

8th May - 12 days up - still not heard anything from GUS. The additional 30 days will be up on 7th June.

At what point should I send the non-compliance letter? And will I be able to get the default removed?

PJ xx

[iancognito]

Are there any charges? I know many catalogues charge an 'admin fee' for late payments, I think the easiest way to get a default removed is to include it with a charges claim - and we know you're good at that PJ!!

I had the same response from Intrum Justicia after my CCA so seems they are quite happy to offload the problem.

The letter should be sent after the 12 day period has passed but you also need to think about your ultimate intentions regarding the debt, there are several ways to deal with this situation and you should ensure the debt is settled or it could come back to haunt you in the future.

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

I think I've got a result with this one [not 100% sure until I've received credit reports from CallCredit and Equifax]!

I received a copy of my credit report from Experian today, just to check that Yorkshire Bank had removed a default which they promised they would, because I'm changing mortgages. As it goes, they have [not that I didn't trust their word lol], but I no longer have a default on relating to this GUS debt [which was on as International Collections Group].

Like I said, I've requested my report from the other two CRA's [this default was also showing on the CallCredit reports I've had in the past]. If this default isn't on any of the other reports either, would I be right to assume that they've no claim to this debt anymore [they failed to produce the signed CCA and Notice of Default which I requested]?

Got to admit, it was pretty nice looking at my report and seeing only one default on it for a change!

[Delta]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

I had a debt with Intrum Jusitia (whatever) a few years ago, the debt was for about £500, by the time I got piffed off with them, their demands and their charges I had paid about £1000 to them, and still owed about £400. Told them to naff off, they weren't getting another penny from me..... never heard from them again!

[iancognito]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Its strange because I thought I'd got rid of them with a CCA request but they keep bouncing back from different departments every few weeks, I'm taking a leaf out of Luggerbugs book now and just playing silly beggars with 'em, my last letter to them was 31 pages long!!!

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

I got my other two credit reports yesterday - no mention of the Great Universal default on any of them.

So, YAYYYYYY, result!!!

[pam1]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

well done PJ, i like the way you say only 1 default lol, I have 1 and its doing my nut in. But what a brilliant turn of events.

With the way defaults are added willy nilly to peoples accounts by coompanies and them not having to prove anything in writting untill the individual requests it, is disgusting and means so many more people won't get mortgages let alone a house they can afford.

Anyone would think the Banks and the Government want the country to fall flat on its face.

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Well this has finally reared it's ugly head again - I thought as much on Thursday when I had a message left on my phone from McKenzie Hall Mckenzie Hall? - Legal Beagles

Update from CCA being sent to GUS on 24th April 2007:

13 September 2007 - Received a letter from Fredrickson International Ltd, informing me that my debt had been legally assigned to Phoenix Recoveries [UK] Ltd, acting in the name and on behalf of its compartment SDFS Recoveries. Also, same date, letter from SDFS informing me that on 27th March 2007 my account was legally assigned to Phoenix Recoveries Ltd and, as such, any further communications and payments regarding the account must now be addressed to Fredrickson International Ltd.

12 October 2007 - Letter from Fredrickson saying that I should contact them immediately as debt is seriously overdue [bear in mind, never received anything whatsoever from CCA sent to Great Universal].

17th October 2007 - Lovely letter, courtesy of our Tools, to Fredrickson [attached]

17 October 2007 - Response from Fredrickson thanking me for recent communication regarding this account. They have referred the matter to their client and will revert to me as soon as they are in receipt of instructions. In the meantime they confirm that they have placed the account on hold.

9 October 2009 - Annual Statement [which I gather all creditors are required to send these days] covering period 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009 [no transactions during this period] recieved from Credit Account Management Ltd, agents appointed to manage debt on behalf of SDFS Recoveries [giving contact details for Fredricksons].

26th November - text message sent to home phone number from McKenzie Hall [as per attached thread mentioned earlier].

30th November - Letter received from McKenzie Hall, headed Notice of Intended Action. This states that they are under instructions by their client [Phoenix Recoveries UK Ltd] to recover the outstanding balance. This letter fulfills their legal requirement to inform me of their clients intended action, even if I do not acknowledge this. It is now imperative that I contact their office within 48 hours [which I have no intention of contacting anyone by telephone, and am not in a financial position to settle the account - £631.96]. By doing so, I am showing an interest to resolve this matter and they will endevour to come to an arrangement with me. Should I decide to ignore this advice, their client will not hesitate to instruct the appropriate action be taken to recover the outstanding balance in full. Disregarding this letter will not make this problem go away.


What's my next course of action now, considering that I've still not received anything relating to my original CCA requests, even after the harsher letter sent to Fredrickson, or do I just roll over, give them a call and arrange monthly installments again?

Any help/advice appreciated.

PJ xXx

[LuggerBugs]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Just reply with "Please refer to prior communications. Now put up, or shut up."

Or words to that effect.

[Tools]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

I wouldn't even acknowledge them, ignore them.

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Thanks for your input guys. I've just been having a good old read of Curlys consumer credit agreement guide, and it makes a pretty interesting read [although there were one or two points that confused me a little - the mention of 12+ months in post #5, not sure where that comes in]

Much as I'm tempted to just ignore McKenzie Hall, I don't want to appear as just burying my head in the sand if they do decide to take things further, and feel that I really should acknowledge them, and let them know I mean business. I'm just a little confused as to which letter to use, as a couple of them seem to relate. Could someone point me to the right letter, considering the information provided above please?

Thanks

PJ xXx

[Amy]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Legal Beagles

Post #4 Duds.

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

I actually got sidetracked with one thing and another after Amy replied to my post, and I haven't responded to McKenzie Halls letter at all. Will this go against me, or is it just a case of seeing what they throw at me next?

[Curlyben]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Once a debt gets to Mucky Hall you KNOW it's well and truly DEAD.
MH specialise in debts that are statute barred and completely unenforceable.

You might get some meaningless threats for their other desk, Meritforce, threatening a visit, but that's about it.

Game over..

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Thank you for that Curly, it's set my mind at rest a little now I know what to expect next [still might, most likely actually, have another wobble when I get another letter, but that's just me! lol].