Statutory purposes only on payments

[warwick65]

Just after some views.
Many people say when sending payment for a cca request or a SAR to write for statutory purposes only on it. Is this necessary

My reason is
It is years since banks sent cheques back to the signatory, now they are shredded. If this is the case why write anything on it?

Isn't it easier to just include in the letter
I enclose a cheque /postal order number xxxxxx for x. This is to be used for statutory purposes only. The keep a copy of the letter and cheque

At least with the second idea you can show what the payment was for, the first... Well what can you prove unless you have also scanned it.

[R0b]

Re: Statutory purposes only on payments

I'm not so sure it is necessary to do that however, my experience from reading these forums (or so it used to be) is that debt purchasers used to, or still do, cash the cheque for CCA requests and credit the £1 against the debt. I assume they then argue that a payment is made which is an acknowledgement of debt and so the clock restarts for the purposes of limitation.

I'm guessing the reason for adding the words 'Statutory Purposes only' is an attempt to add that layer of protection for SAR requests in the same way? So that if there was ever the question of whether or not the payment was made against the debt or some other purpose then the reference could be checked to confirm. I suppose you could even say 'Subject Access Request' as the reference and 'Section 77/78 CCA Request' for any avoidance of doubt.

Of course a letter would ordinarily be sufficient reason to stipulate the purpose of the cheque, though it might not deter the recipient (in these examples the debt purchaser) from using it for other means.

On a slightly other note, there are certain rules on how a payment is appropriated. For example, if you send a cheque but don't specify the nature or purpose of the cheque, it is open to the recipient to allocate it in a way it sees fit. This goes back to the beginning about adding an extra layer of protection if in any doubt.

Perhaps others might have a differing view.

[charitynjw]

Re: Statutory purposes only on payments

@R0b

I agree with you.

I did see one case where the payment (not sure now if it was a cheque or a PO) somehow 'became detached' from the letter/request.
The creditor went on to say that as there were no indications on the payment as to the purpose of the payment, it was taken as a contribution to the outstanding debt.

Where is that flying pig 'smiley' when you need it?, lol.

[nemesis45]

Re: Statutory purposes only on payments

I'm not so sure it is necessary to do that however, my experience from reading these forums (or so it used to be) is that debt purchasers used to, or still do, cash the cheque for CCA requests and credit the £1 against the debt. I assume they then argue that a payment is made which is an acknowledgement of debt and so the clock restarts for the purposes of limitation.

I'm guessing the reason for adding the words 'Statutory Purposes only' is an attempt to add that layer of protection for SAR requests in the same way? So that if there was ever the question of whether or not the payment was made against the debt or some other purpose then the reference could be checked to confirm. I suppose you could even say 'Subject Access Request' as the reference and 'Section 77/78 CCA Request' for any avoidance of doubt.

Of course a letter would ordinarily be sufficient reason to stipulate the purpose of the cheque, though it might not deter the recipient (in these examples the debt purchaser) from using it for other means.

On a slightly other note, there are certain rules on how a payment is appropriated. For example, if you send a cheque but don't specify the nature or purpose of the cheque, it is open to the recipient to allocate it in a way it sees fit. This goes back to the beginning about adding an extra layer of protection if in any doubt.

Perhaps others might have a differing view.

Spot on [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION], there are very many instances of debt purchasers statutory fees as payments to a debt and later claiming payments of £1.00 or £10.00 have been made and therefore a debt is not statute barred.

I would never recommend using a cheque to pay stat fees in my opinion giving a debt purchaser bank details is unwise!

nem

[warwick65]

Re: Statutory purposes only on payments

Thanks for the input

While I do see your point I am not sure that writing anything on the cheque or postal order would alter the misappropriation of funds. I also wonder just how many of these so called payments received are real or even had anything written on the payment method.

As for paying by cheque- well IMO , it is easy to see if they have cashed the cheque and also easy enough to stop any fraud, which is after all what is being suggested. A DD has certain guarantees.

Again IMO writing on the form of payment is probably secondary to including the cheque number or postal order reference within the body of the letter and making sure a copy is kept.

- - - Updated - - -
[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]

It did make me chuckle when you said some firm argued the payment had become detached from the letter - how did they know to which account to allocate it to.