Full Disclosure & DCA - Help!

123 wrote:This is a bit piecemeal and horse from tail - still hoping this snippet makes sense:

1. FamCt gave directions at a hearing for Po-lice disclosure and for the (unsalaried) requesting party to pay for the disclosure whilst having to share this subsequently with the (salaried) opponent free of charge
2. Due to having been overwhelmed with their numerous tweaks deployed in this matter (including my med. practice seemingly being instructed to delay issuing medical notes by 2 months in order to force me having to attend a hearing despite being on the verge of a breakdown, hence had lost track of chasing up this part-disclosure, which is missing a number of crime reports and the FamCt limited arbitrarily the scope of the disclosure only because I could not quote all crime reports immediately.
3. Only found in hindsight a Po-lice request form guidance which states amongst others: "The nature and relevance of the documents, records or other evidential material sought." - no such form has been provided after the hearing and hence no evidential material sought could be outlined!
4. No invoice has ever been received by snailmail or otherwise
5. Instead now suddenly received an underhand email payment reminder from their Debt management claiming the invoice is allegedly overdue?!

flyingfish wrote:Can you clarify some of your abbreviations, for example I presume by CRIS you do not mean ...  Similarly "FAMCT", is that Family Court?

flyingfish wrote:In addition can you give a bit more clarity on the underlying matter?  Is it civil or criminal, you refer to procedures from each.

flyingfish wrote:Regarding that invoice, what lead to the Police invoicing you in the first place, was that ordered by the court or what?

flyingfish wrote:Just looking at that issue in isolation I suggest the first step is to request a copy of the original invoice and take it from there.

As long as you NEVER acknowledge that a debt exists (all debts are in fact alleged debts until they are lawfully evidenced as no longer being alleged) and so long as you NEVER pay so much as a penny towards any alleged debt, then the longest it will take for the alleged debt to become no longer legally enforceable is six years (for England and Wales) or five years (for Scotland) from the default notice expiry date to ‘Statute Barred’.

123 wrote:[b]Does their "Debt management" still fall under "original creditor" or under DCA and which of the 3ltr-processes applies in this case - OLD/NEW GF process?

flyingfish wrote:

[b]Does their "Debt management" still fall under "original creditor" or under DCA and which of the 3ltr-processes applies in this case - OLD/NEW GF process?

If that payment reminder came from the police, then treat it as original creditor.

Mrblue2015 wrote:Check out the following section, as in have a good read, check out the videos etc and then decide if you wish to take this route or not:

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t5263-the-new-goodf-approach-please-read-this-first

E-Mail has no voracity in law and is not classed as "served" and this means they have to send it in writing, it has to have full accounting as well as bearing a signature in real ink or electronically signed by a real person and not a company, if it is signed XYZ Constabulary then its signed by a company and not a person, it is then incomplete and has no voracity.

Contact the court and inform them the po-lice are not disclosing/refusing to disclose documentation and this alone will invalidate the process on the grounds of "procedural impropriety".

E-Mail has no voracity in law and is not classed as "served" and this means they have to send it in writing, it has to have full accounting as well as bearing a signature in real ink or electronically signed by a real person and not a company, if it is signed XYZ Constabulary then its signed by a company and not a person, it is then incomplete and has no voracity.

waylander62 wrote:what type of application are we talking about ?

most applications are done online these days where there is no need for a wet signature but does need to be the name of an individual.
....

Mrblue2015 wrote:Or has a debt purchaser or debt collector simply said something along the lines of “we may litigate”?

If the latter, ignore it and start with the NEW process. If I had a pound for every time they ‘threatened’ litigation, I’d be a very rich man

That’s my advice.

Mrblue2015 wrote:Personally I would still start with the NEW approach. Doesn't matter that you've already sent letter 1 from the old approach. The idiots won't digest it (the first letter let alone any others) anyway...

Mrblue2015 wrote:In my opinion, carry on with the old process. If that does not work, start with the new process. That’s what I would do, but the choice is yours of course. (The old process has worked for many people, as it did me, but we must evolve with the times…)

Also, and in response to your PM, (please only ask your questions in this forum so that everyone can benefit / learn) we suggest 10 days between letters as that is more than reasonable in our view to allow them to respond. You’ll find they they can quite often reply within a week, let alone 10 days. To my knowledge, there is no legal aspect to that duration. I hope this helps.

123 wrote:
Re 3rd ltr - does the updated invoice fulfill by any means what the 2nd/3rd ltr asks for - ie
Deed of Assignment and Deed of Novation - not or?

flyingfish wrote:
Are you still dealing with the Police, albeit a separate department?  If so then I think you should consider them still the original (alleged) creditor in which case there would have been no assignment or novation.