Hi,

I wonder if anyone can help. I received a Letter today from those nice people at Lowell Portfolio asking to confirm if I had ever lived at an address. I did about 11 or 12 years ago for about 6 months. After looking them up on the internet I assume it is about an old Barclaycard debt which Barclays just stopped sending bills for, and being young and foolish at the time thought I had got away with. In the meantime I have never had any contact from anyone from Barclays or anywhere else about this debt (it's that long ago I don't even know how much it is for). They have asked me to confirm that I lived at that address, and if I don't phone them (which the general advice on sites seems to be not to) they will update their records to show I did - and I assume start to chase the debt. (No mention of any debt is mentioned on the letter). Any ideas as to the best course of action to take?

I believe if this is your first contact for 11 years do nothing. The account is "statute barred" and they are not entitled to anything as it has lay dormant for over 6 years

Hi --- Agreed.... if this debt is unsecured and no CCJ was ever issued then under the limitations act 1980 you should write recorded delivery, stating you now consider the debt, "statute barred" this applies when old debt has not been acknowledged or paid towards and where no contact has happened for a period of Six years.

I enclose a article with a template letter from the UK Insolvency helpline below, which you will have to copy & paste both bits into your browser to make it work. ?

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/debt_factsheets/liability_for_debts_and_the

_limitation_act.htm

The debt will always be there it's just that by law there will be no way of legally enforcing it, or contacting you without risking harrassment charges or recording it on your credit reference.

Hi,

Thanks to you both for this advice and after looking at the web link will certainly follow it.

Here's hoping it keeps them away,

Many thanks again.

11 or 12 years ago? And they write to you asking if you ever lived at a particular address? Without having definitive proof that you did so? Did they mention the fact that they were chasing you for a debt?

I wonder how this case fares with regards to the following OFT "unfair practices" listed in their guidelines for debt collection http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf:

2.2(c) "those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the contact is" - did they make it obvious that the purpose of their communication was to determine if you owed money on a debt?

2.8(a) "sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question, for example, threatening debt recovery action to 'the occupier' or sending a payment demand to all people sharing the same name/date of birth as a debtor in the hope that contact with the correct debtor will be made." - do you have any reason to believe that they have contacted you without being certain that you were the debtor in question?

I would recommend keeping an eye on this case with regards to the OFT guidelines - as this is an old debt, then pay close attention to the OFT guidelines relating to "statute barred" debt where no written acknowledgement of the debt or payment by yourself has been made within the last 6 years...

"2.14 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:

a. we accept legally the debt exists

b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be unfair as follows:

it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period

if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt

it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, for example, falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal provisions, and

continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970."