Tweet
Hi
i posted before about mortimer clarke trying to say a debt wasn't statute barred due to the agreement being terminated in 2009 I sent a letter back in October 2014 stating that this wasn't correct as it wasn't acknowledgement off the debt and asked for proof otherwise
today I received a letter and statement saying it isn't statute barred due to repossession fees in early 2009 but these repossession fees were not made by me they was made by the original credit company
are they trying to pull a fast one on me or are they right cos I thought it had to be the last time I acknowledged the debt which would make it over 6 years
please can anyone help as I need to know what to reply and can they take 4 months since I sent the letter to them and the court case is stayed due to them not responding in time
i posted before about mortimer clarke trying to say a debt wasn't statute barred due to the agreement being terminated in 2009 I sent a letter back in October 2014 stating that this wasn't correct as it wasn't acknowledgement off the debt and asked for proof otherwise
today I received a letter and statement saying it isn't statute barred due to repossession fees in early 2009 but these repossession fees were not made by me they was made by the original credit company
are they trying to pull a fast one on me or are they right cos I thought it had to be the last time I acknowledged the debt which would make it over 6 years
please can anyone help as I need to know what to reply and can they take 4 months since I sent the letter to them and the court case is stayed due to them not responding in time
