i cant understand why you where given money back unless you where paying back the full 100p/£.
surely if certain creditors failed to submit a claim by the end of the iva others creditors would simply receive a better dividend up to the full amount owed.
even so the debt is now certainly statute barred and is typical of the behaviour of companies such as capquest they know full well the rules,but,they also know that many do not and they exploit this to the full.
I totally agree with Melanie - this is up to vinnie to take up with his old IP and Capquest.
I hope he comes back and lets us know what happens.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
totally agree with melanie any funds returned to you by your ip should have been forwarded to your creditors at the end of your iva ,there will be a clause in your conditions relating to realisations on completion of your iva normally under £500.this should have been fully explained to you though in writing when the funds were returned to you with instructions who to pay how to pay and how much.you need to take this up with your ip,good luck.
Update after time to think and to re-locate some of my archived files (not all of them, still looking for some).
The debt that is now being chased by CapQuest was definitely included in the original creditors meeting in March 2000. All creditors voted in favour.
My original list of creditors totalled just under £19k but the agreed amount due to the creditors as per the IP letter just before completion ( June 2006) showed an amount of just over £22k (??). I paid in total just over £20k.
I'm not sure why they didn't claim their money. It seems that they are very inefficient in that they still show the full amount as outstanding even though they agreed to the arrangement, received annual statements and were notified by the IP at the end of the arrangement. In short they have been informed all the way along.
I would be very surprised indeed if the debt actually exists in their accounts. Surely their auditors would advise full write-off (because of the age). They probably move these type of accounts to a memorandum account or something like that.
Anyway I digress.
Turn the clock forward three years to now and as they have somehow failed to administer this account correctly (and many others no doubt) they chase for the balance. As it stands today with them not making any reference to the IVA in their latest correspondence (I have now had a letter from the Credit Card Company and CapQuest - the C/Card Company informing me that they have sold the debt on) it would seem on the face of it that the IVA never happened according to their latest records.
In which case, as this is the first communication I have had from them regarding this for nearly 10 years, would I be best going down the statute barred response when I write to them (planning to do this tomorrow or Monday at the latest).
Or should I remind them about the IVA (why I should have to remind them and rectify their mistakes irks me somewhat. Once I do that I will be so miffed if I have to start doing all the running round - writing letters, digging out files and correspondence etc;)
Or should my letter make reference to both the IVA and the old age of the debt. I have found a statute barred letter template on another site that I was thinking of using. I could cannabalise it to include any reference to the IVA as well if required.
If the IVA is to be mentioned and as they have messed up, I feel that I should refer to it only and let them do the chasing round in their records to get to the bottom of it.
Also, is it best if I mark my letter "Without Prejudice".
Is it worth me mentioning the Credit Card company in this forum? It may be that people on here know that they have a history of bad management and administration and this of course will be a big contributory factor to the mess they have made in all this.
I've just realiseed this is quite a long post - apologies for that. Many thanks to all who have taken the trouble to respond. I really appreciate it.
Do both at the same time - ie argue the IVA point and the statute barred point in the same letter. There is no need to mark the letter "Without Prejudice" as you are not suggesting a compromise or making an offer.
We would love to know who the creditor actually is that is chasing you so long after their debt was correctly included in an IVA. My guess is that this will go away, but be firm and tell them you have no intention of entering into any further correspondence.
Thanks for the great advice. I will do both - that was the route I was thinking of going down. The only reason I haven't mentioned the creditor is out of my being ultra cautious. I wouldn't put it past employee's etc; of theirs snooping around forums like this (not that it will do them any good neccesarily - as I say, just me being over cautious).
Any way, as it's Friday, I am going to sit down, relax, have a glass of wine and listen to one of my favourite albums - ABBEY Road.
Thanks again.
Vinnie.
MelanieGiles wrote:
Do both at the same time - ie argue the IVA point and the statute barred point in the same letter. There is no need to mark the letter "Without Prejudice" as you are not suggesting a compromise or making an offer.
We would love to know who the creditor actually is that is chasing you so long after their debt was correctly included in an IVA. My guess is that this will go away, but be firm and tell them you have no intention of entering into any further correspondence.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
Another update. I received a letter from CapQuest this morning saying that:
"it has been brought to our attention that a number of the accounts within the portfolio of debts that were sold to us are accounts where the debtor is bankrupt. We are investigating all of these and in the meantime no further action will be taken by us in respect of them. Should it be appropriate for any further action to be taken on your account we will write to you again before any such action is taken.
If you are or have been subject to a bankruptcy order then please disregard this letter"
NB-"Should it be appropriate for any further action to be taken on your account we will write to you again before any such action is taken"
- oh thanks, I can't wait.
On a less flippant note, as I have not been made bankrupt, should I fire off a letter to them anyway pointing out the completion of the IVA and the fact that the debt should be statute barred? Or should I just leave it until they sort out the huge mess they appear to be in? For obvious reasons I am a bit reluctant to offer any help to someone so incompetent that may ultimately result in my assistance being used against me.
It makes you wonder what other cock-ups these institutions make. What if the original letter that I received also went incorrectly to someone seriously ill or a relative of someone recently deceased or something like that. Imagine the distress that could cause. And no doubt there would be no chance of recourse against such a Mickey Mouse outfit.
But not to worry hey, at this moment in time they are not sure if they have screwed up but if they have...Oops!! But if they think they haven't:
"well we are not 100% sure but we think you do owe us money so cough up....or else"
Apologies for the flippancy but it really annoys me that these outfits are so incompetent and that their incompetence can just be seen as a matter of fact mistake. Don't these people realise what stress and grief their incompetence causes. There should be some way in which they were made to pay for their actions.
Let us know Vinnie - we will be interested to know.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
