Fredrickson international

[Nibbler]

Re: Fredrickson international

Statute Barred

A debt is considered Statute Barred if a creditor has not contacted a debtor for a period of 6 years and no action has been taken on the account.
Although the debt is still legally acknowledged as being owed, the creditor is not able to take any legal action against the debtor in order to recover the debt. It is considered unfair if a creditor or debt collector misleads the debtor into believing the debt is still legally recoverable. It is also considered an unfair practice if the creditor or debt collector press for payment after the debtor has stated they will not be paying the money owed. This could amount to harassment contrary to Section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970This is not the case wiith DWP. The debt is still legally recoverable, but not through the courts. If a debtor states they will not be paying the money owed and the DWP press for payment, believe you me, they will not be done for harassment as they are quite within their rights.

Yes. Because as I said, the debt being statute barred simply bars court action. Nothing else.

Other thing concerning when and how it is fair to ask for payment are governed by other statute and/or regulators by the OFT, not the Limitation Act 1980.

The debt is still statute barred, regardless of what secondary statute/regulation may say about what can be done to collect.

[Nibbler]

Re: Fredrickson international

A debt is considered Statute Barred if a creditor has not contacted a debtor for a period of 6 years and no action has been taken on the account.

That's not true either.

A creditor contacting a debtor has no effect on when the debt becomes statute barred. They could write and phone every day for the entire 6 years, and it would not stop the debt becoming statute barred.

[Nibbler]

Re: Fredrickson international

ben13: Apologies for going off at a bit of a tangent, but there is much misinformation and misunderstanding out there about statute barred debts. Especially when it comes to those owed in some way to the government.

When things like "DWP/government debts are never statute barred" are said, it annoys me just a tad. :o

[ben13]

Re: Fredrickson international

No worries nibbler. Whats your best advice then?

[Caspar]

Re: Fredrickson international

Good. When they close one office and move all the stuff to another place they usually have enormous difficulty finding it again. If you're really unlucky it pops up on a computer search, but if it relied on any paper chase, the chances of them finding that are, in my experience, slim.

As long as you are sure no contact / acknowledgement has been made in the last 6 years you can safely totally ignore the LBA as they cannot take any action. All they can do, as has already been said, is deduct money from benefits if you claim any again.

I think this is a case of the DWP trying it on and hoping some of those contacted will pay up. If you think about it, they can't take legal action, if they could deduct it from your SSP they would be doing, so why the hell are Fredericksons and Iqor involved at all?

I'd ignore the DCA's, contact your MP and explain you are off sick and have had these very distressing letters from a DCA regarding an alleged 10 year old debt to the DWP. Could they please follow it up for you through the parliamentary ombudsman.

I think you'll find your MP excellent, regardless of your personal political leaning.

[Nibbler]

Re: Fredrickson international

No worries nibbler. Whats your best advice then?

Well, you clearly have to dispute the debt entirely and/or demand proof of it.

Capsar has provided some good info on that.

However, even if the debt was miraculously proved to be yours, then it would still be statute barred, meaning that you can see off any threat by iQor/Fredrickson regarding court action.

I've seen 3 or 4 cases myself of iQor going after statute barred DWP debts and several dozen more from various CAB advisors I have talked to, and once they are told they are SB then they hand them back to DWP PDQ.

Obviously in your case you want the DCAs off your back , so that DWP can properly investigate the dispute debt. So dispute the debt yes, but you can also get rid of the DCA quickly by mentioning in any dispute letter that you send them that the debt would be SB anyway.

[Caspar]

Re: Fredrickson international

Nibbler - my mistake sorry. Creditor and debtor wrong way round!

I know what you mean about the misuse of the term SB, but for most people it's easier to explain it that way than get into detail which may confuse them. What most need to understand with DWP is that it can be legally recovered after 6 years, just not through the courts.

[ben13]

Re: Fredrickson international

Thanks Caspar. I'll give my MP a call tomorrow.

Is it worth sending a letter to Fredricksons???

[Nibbler]

Re: Fredrickson international

Is it worth sending a letter to Fredricksons???

Depends on how much you are bothered by their letters?

Many people would say just ignore them.

Or you could send them a short sharp letter telling them that the debt is disputed with DWP and that give the dates it would also be statute barred regardless. And that even way, any legal action by them will not succeed.

Up to how you feel really....

[Caspar]

Re: Fredrickson international

My opinion would be no, let them carry on. Every minute they waste chasing you for something they haven't a hope in hell of getting is saving some other poor s0d being pestered, and if the DWP and a couple of DCA's get pulled up by the parliamentary ombudsman then they may be more careful in future. I don't see it as your job to warn them.

[Nibbler]

Re: Fredrickson international

I know what you mean about the misuse of the term SB, but for most people it's easier to explain it that way than get into detail which may confuse them. What most need to understand with DWP is that it can be legally recovered after 6 years, just not through the courts.

True. But I've seen enough threads from people who have "read a thread", interpreted things wrongly, and then gone on to get themselves in some bother.

I've then spent some considerable time trying to help them dig themselves out of a hole.

So 'swings' and 'roundabouts' when it comes to how much to explain.

[ben13]

Re: Fredrickson international

I was thinking maybe send them a prove it letter as their is NO info on fred's letter other than Iqor on behalf of DWP

[Caspar]

Re: Fredrickson international

True. But I've seen enough threads from people who have "read a thread", interpreted things wrongly, and then gone on to get themselves in some bother.

I've then spent some considerable time trying to help them dig themselves out of a hole.

So 'swings' and 'roundabouts' when it comes to how much to explain.

Couldn't agree more - some take it all in no problem, some it's like talking to a brick wall!

[Nibbler]

Re: Fredrickson international

I was thinking maybe send them a prove it letter as their is NO info on fred's letter other than Iqor on behalf of DWP

If it was me then I would send a letter saying that:

a) I totally dispute this debt
b) It would anyway be SB
c) I will defend any action you may take.
d) If you go ahead with any action after all that, I will report you to everyone under the sun and his dog.

But as they must know legal action would be daft, ignoring is a perhaps a viable option as well?

As said, in the end a judgement call only you can make.

[Caspar]

Re: Fredrickson international

Ignore or send a letter. The main thing is report it to your MP for the parliamentary ombudsman and to know that you're safe from anything. If you find out what the debt is, let us know though, it's intriguing!