You are in an interesting position because if the receipts do not match the amount claimed then how is the A&L going to justify its claim to the judge? And it will have to go to a judge if it wants to try to get a charge on your current house.(posted 8558 days ago)A judge might say that even if the receipts don't justify the claim there is some claim but this depends on the facts of the case. The only people who really do have all the facts of the case to hand is the lender and this means you cannot know how big their claim against you really is or if they have a valid claim at all.
The A&L won't naturally find out that you have bought another house but most lenders have dumped their list of shortfall claim victims with tracing companies (or their own tracing departments) who do a computerised credit reference check once a year. They inform the lender or start the chase once they get a match.
What this boils down to is that you fac a risk of being hassled if you do apply for a mortgage (because your request will show up a few months later in your credit records and on the National Hunter database). However, being hassled and losing in court are two different things and you appear to have some evidence that the A&L has been playing fast and lose with its claim numbers.
The safe answer on the six year rule in your case is to wait 12 years before trying to own an expensive asset or to settle with A&L for a couple of grand to get them off your back.l (This latter approach is more problematic than it looks - read the site for details)
My advice would be to rent and save until 12 years has passed.
You have done no wrong by not responding to their letters once you had evidence that their claim was flawed - it is up to them to justify a flawed claim in the courts.
Debts do get written off but you are rarely told about it.
Lee