Six year rule?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
I voluntarily returned the house keys to the Brittania BS in May 1992. I have had no contact with anyone from the BBS since. I mentioned the six year rule to my Dad a couple of months ago when I paid him a visit from overseas where I have lived since May 1992. He told me that sometime in 1997 he had received at his home address a number of letters from a solicitor with my name on the envelope that requested I contact them regarding the repossesion. After opening the first one and reading it he sent the others that followed for the next few months back to the sender - with "unknown at this address." The letters stopped after the fourth or fifth. He also got a card in the mail about a year ago addressed to me asking me to call a number to receive a prize. He called the number but denied, when asked personal questions about me, that he didn't know me although the surname was the same. No more prize letters have arrived since.
Now the question. Since the solicitor and "prize" people sent the letter to my Dad, he didn't want to tell me about them as not wanting to upset me, how does this equate to the six year rule. He only told me about the letters, etc (mid 2000) after I showed him some articles I had copied to show him from this excellent Website. I still live overseas.
Any advice would be most welcome - thank you
-- Ray (email@example.com), December 17, 2000
According to the lenders etc the six year rule as to when 'contact' is made is when they send a letter regardless of where they send it. I am arguing strongly against those after me who say contact was made in 1998 and, on request, have sent me copies of letters they sent to an address. They sent 9 in all - ALL to an address at which I was not resident and those who were did not know me or where I lived. All the solicitors say to me is that 'for their purposes' contact was made before the change to six years from 11/2/00.
I am not going to let this one lie as I feel that if they are correct then a letter to a hut in outer Mongolia is, for them, contact. I am able to prove 100% where I lived and prove that they could have found me if they wanted. Continue to argue that the CML agreement means that they are too late and the 'debt' is statute barred as well as asking for copies of documents you are entitled to, such as the Money Order Judgement.
I am of the mind that they will need to go to court to get a penny out of me, so it will be interesting to find out the judges view on letters sent, then returned as not known etc, being their proof that 'contact' had been made.
Be prepared for your requests and questions to more or less be ignored and for them to take the 'we are better than you' line. Keep asking the same questions until they respond. Keep the same arguements going unless they can come up with something better than 'for our purposes' - my MP says that this is rubbish and they have to explain themselves properly. Read the whole of this site - it is excellent.
If I have confused you or you need more advice come back to the site or directly if you want (the site is better as many out there know a lot more than me). Don't let the b*s*t*r*s grind you down.
-- Matt (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 18, 2000.