ACI

[Whogotmename]

Hi again

I received a response from ACI today, stating that they have requested the original credit agreement from Intrum Finance UK (the company Verify mentioned, not HFC as in the first and second letters from ACI), and that in the meantime my account has been put on hold, which im guessing will prevent any visit planned.

I have no recollection of ever engaging with Intrum, so we'll see what transpires, but I'm just a little concerned that they now imply in this letter I have an account with them - when I've clearly disputed the debt as I've never previously dealt or engaged with either HFC or with Intrum.

Do I just wait to see what they come back with? I know my last eight years of credit have been clean and healthy and I'm just worried about saying or writing the wrong thing whereby they then assume I'm acknowledging the debt in question. And if, for arguments sake this is from the 2008 period where I fell in and was homeless, any debt from that point is well past the SB threshold.

As an aside, I did uncover and report a rogue landlord who used my details in 2009 on a property of his for utilities, so I'm not ruling out a debt in my name from this period that I never took out - especially with some of the address link variances I noticed from that period.

Anyway, about the latest letter - is it clearly in their court now to prove?

Thanks

Richard

[Whogotmename]

Actually the clean credit most likely goes back a little longer than eight years, not that it's an important factor here. I was homeless 2009 to 2012, and then in supported housing from 2012 until 2014...at which point I took on the property I'm in now and have lived at since, about ten and a half tears here now...

[echat11]

a) I received a response from ACI today, stating that they have requested the original credit agreement from Intrum Finance UK (the company Verify mentioned, not HFC as in the first and second letters from ACI), and that in the meantime my account has been put on hold, which im guessing will prevent any visit planned.

Yes, accounts on 'hold', so no visit.

b) I have no recollection of ever engaging with Intrum, so we'll see what transpires, but I'm just a little concerned that they now imply in this letter I have an account with them - when I've clearly disputed the debt as I've never previously dealt or engaged with either HFC or with Intrum.

Might be them being 'sneaky', you could send another letter saying the same thing about 'Verify' once you see what they send.

c) Do I just wait to see what they come back with? I know my last eight years of credit have been clean and healthy and I'm just worried about saying or writing the wrong thing whereby they then assume I'm acknowledging the debt in question. And if, for arguments sake this is from the 2008 period where I fell in and was homeless, any debt from that point is well past the SB threshold.

Yes, just wait.

d) As an aside, I did uncover and report a rogue landlord who used my details in 2009 on a property of his for utilities, so I'm not ruling out a debt in my name from this period that I never took out - especially with some of the address link variances I noticed from that period.

This might be important, who did you report it to.

e) Anyway, about the latest letter - is it clearly in their court now to prove?

They need compliant documentation to make a claim, so yes.

[echat11]

Actually the clean credit most likely goes back a little longer than eight years, not that it's an important factor here. I was homeless 2009 to 2012, and then in supported housing from 2012 until 2014...at which point I took on the property I'm in now and have lived at since, about ten and a half tears here now...

O.K.

[Whogotmename]

a) I received a response from ACI today, stating that they have requested the original credit agreement from Intrum Finance UK (the company Verify mentioned, not HFC as in the first and second letters from ACI), and that in the meantime my account has been put on hold, which im guessing will prevent any visit planned.

Yes, accounts on 'hold', so no visit.

OK thank you - that removes an immediate worry for me.

b) I have no recollection of ever engaging with Intrum, so we'll see what transpires, but I'm just a little concerned that they now imply in this letter I have an account with them - when I've clearly disputed the debt as I've never previously dealt or engaged with either HFC or with Intrum.

Might be them being 'sneaky', you could send another letter saying the same thing about 'Verify' once you see what they send.

Sorry _ I'm a little unclear on this reply....I've already sent a letter to both ACI and to Verify (despite them having exactly the same postal address) disputing the debt last week. Do you mean write another letter to both companies warning them not to imply anything at this point in the process?

c) Do I just wait to see what they come back with? I know my last eight years of credit have been clean and healthy and I'm just worried about saying or writing the wrong thing whereby they then assume I'm acknowledging the debt in question. And if, for arguments sake this is from the 2008 period where I fell in and was homeless, any debt from that point is well past the SB threshold.

Yes, just wait.

OK will do.

d) As an aside, I did uncover and report a rogue landlord who used my details in 2009 on a property of his for utilities, so I'm not ruling out a debt in my name from this period that I never took out - especially with some of the address link variances I noticed from that period.

This might be important, who did you report it to.

I think it was the main utility supplier for Taunton where I was homeless, which would have been Wessex Water - this only came to light when I first took on the property I am in now and signed up for my local utilities - the amount in question was around £800. I wrote to them, explained the situation - and gave the name of the landlord, dates I was homeless and so on.

They accepted that I was not liable for the amount and period in question, and I have heard nothing regarding this since. This would have been ten years ago now - and to be honest I've probably discarded the letter absolving me of any responsibility - although I'm sure Wessex Water will still have records of this.

e) Anyway, about the latest letter - is it clearly in their court now to prove?

They need compliant documentation to make a claim, so yes.

OK - what would be classed as comlpiant documentation - just curious?

[echat11]

b) I have no recollection of ever engaging with Intrum, so we'll see what transpires, but I'm just a little concerned that they now imply in this letter I have an account with them - when I've clearly disputed the debt as I've never previously dealt or engaged with either HFC or with Intrum.

Might be them being 'sneaky', you could send another letter saying the same thing about 'Verify' once you see what they send.

Sorry _ I'm a little unclear on this reply....I've already sent a letter to both ACI and to Verify (despite them having exactly the same postal address) disputing the debt last week. Do you mean write another letter to both companies warning them not to imply anything at this point in the process?

Then I'm not sure why you are concerned. If you've sent it to both - good.

d) As an aside, I did uncover and report a rogue landlord who used my details in 2009 on a property of his for utilities, so I'm not ruling out a debt in my name from this period that I never took out - especially with some of the address link variances I noticed from that period.

This might be important, who did you report it to.

I think it was the main utility supplier for Taunton where I was homeless, which would have been Wessex Water - this only came to light when I first took on the property I am in now and signed up for my local utilities - the amount in question was around £800. I wrote to them, explained the situation - and gave the name of the landlord, dates I was homeless and so on.

They accepted that I was not liable for the amount and period in question, and I have heard nothing regarding this since. This would have been ten years ago now - and to be honest I've probably discarded the letter absolving me of any responsibility - although I'm sure Wessex Water will still have records of this

I don't think Wessex Water will have documents going that far back, but you can try.

e) Anyway, about the latest letter - is it clearly in their court now to prove?

They need compliant documentation to make a claim, so yes.

OK - what would be classed as comlpiant documentation - just curious?

For the CCA, having the correct information i.e. prescribed terms, APR, Credit Limit, your address at the time etc.

[Whogotmename]

Apologies, I wasn't clear about the first point - what I meant was that by ACI suggesting the account was on hold, it then implies I have an open/active account with them, despite the fact I'm clearly disputing the debt and have written to both ACI & Verify telling them exactly that. I guess the point I was making is - can that 'implied term' make me liable in any way?

I don't think the Wessex Water thing is related, as that amount was £800ish, and ACI are pursuing around £8500. Two drastically different amounts.

Part of the reason Wessex Water were on it so quickly back then is the fact that utility companies share data, and as soon as I registered with Bristol Water (which was then part of Wessex Water and not a separate entity as it is now), the £800 was flagged. I think I had support too from a local financial advice charity (Talking Money) who helped me in resolving the issue & confirming I wasn't liable. At a push I think they would have the correspondence archived, as there's only an obligation on their part to retain data for 7 years as far as I know.

And thanks for the info on compliant documentation - would it not require a signature too - or has the legality around that changed with the advent of digital signatures?

[echat11]

a) Apologies, I wasn't clear about the first point - what I meant was that by ACI suggesting the account was on hold, it then implies I have an open/active account with them, despite the fact I'm clearly disputing the debt and have written to both ACI & Verify telling them exactly that. I guess the point I was making is - can that 'implied term' make me liable in any way?

There is an account, it is closed, with an outstanding balance. You know nothing about the debt and are disputing it with both, ACI & Verify, if they put the account on 'hold', they should suspend all collection activity. If they don't, you lodge a formal complaint in writing, follow the complaints procedure on their website.

b) I don't think the Wessex Water thing is related, as that amount was £800ish, and ACI are pursuing around £8500. Two drastically different amounts.

You said you had an issue where your details had been used without your permission to set up an account, so you've previously said 'the same might apply with this debt'.

c) Part of the reason Wessex Water were on it so quickly back then is the fact that utility companies share data, and as soon as I registered with Bristol Water (which was then part of Wessex Water and not a separate entity as it is now), the £800 was flagged. I think I had support too from a local financial advice charity (Talking Money) who helped me in resolving the issue & confirming I wasn't liable. At a push I think they would have the correspondence archived, as there's only an obligation on their part to retain data for 7 years as far as I know.

Yes, evidence would be good.

d) And thanks for the info on compliant documentation - would it not require a signature too - or has the legality around that changed with the advent of digital signatures?

Yes, if you've opened an account online there won't be a signature as it's been done electronically.

[Whogotmename]

I don't think the Wessex Water thing is related, as that amount was £800ish, and ACI are pursuing around £8500. Two drastically different amounts.

You said you had an issue where your details had been used without your permission to set up an account, so you've previously said 'the same might apply with this debt'.

Not quite accurate - what actually happened in this instance was I had taken on a flat in good faith in 2009, set up utilities in my name as one normally would, left the property after roughly six months, a major breakdown, the stroke and not having the capacity to contact anyone or even say my name at the time. The key issue being that from then onwards (the point I left the property and became homeless), my name had been purposefully left on the water utility by the then landlord, long after me vacating that property, so technically he was using a name already on there and not setting up a new account or transferring it to a new tenant's name. As I say, with support I was able to resolve this in 2014.

[echat11]

I don't think the Wessex Water thing is related, as that amount was £800ish, and ACI are pursuing around £8500. Two drastically different amounts.

You said you had an issue where your details had been used without your permission to set up an account, so you've previously said 'the same might apply with this debt'.

Not quite accurate - what actually happened in this instance was I had taken on a flat in good faith in 2009, set up utilities in my name as one normally would, left the property after roughly six months, a major breakdown, the stroke and not having the capacity to contact anyone or even say my name at the time. The key issue being that from then onwards (the point I left the property and became homeless), my name had been purposefully left on the water utility by the then landlord, long after me vacating that property, so technically he was using a name already on there and not setting up a new account or transferring it to a new tenant's name. As I say, with support I was able to resolve this in 2014.

It might be an idea to read my posts again I'm not saying it's the same debt.

[Whogotmename]

Yes, I understand that. What I wanted to clarify was the manner in which the water debt I didn't owe had been previously placed against my name and subsequently cleared. I understand that it's perfectly possible that my details may have been used elsewhere when I was ill, homeless and without my knowledge.

My apologies, I didn't realise that me providing this clarity would confuse the discussion. I was only clarifying this level detail as you previously said 'it might be important'.