Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Old debt statute barred or not?


sid13
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2194 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have two old outstanding debts - £7000 loan and a £1000 overdraft.

 

A bit of background:

 

My long term partner walked out in 2009, leaving me with all our joint debts and paying the mortgage.

I continued making loan repayments for a while before stopping as I was not able to afford them.

They eventually ended up with a debt collection agency.

Having a few major life crises in the intervening years meant that I buried my head in the sand and ignored everything.

 

I am currently trying to sort out a debt management plan with more recent debt on a limited budget.

The person I spoke to said I should be including these two old debts. However, they are not showing on my credit report with noddle, clearscore or experian.

 

There are also no ccj's listed, although I suppose there is a possibility that there could be old ones in existence.

I was told these debts would not be classed as statute barred as the dca have been writing to me regularly and I have been at the same address for a long time.

 

After finding and opening some old post I have found letters from dca going back to 2011.

There have been no payments towards the debt or acknowledgement from me since 2010/2011.

Where do I stand?

 

Advice would be much appreciated.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gave you this advice about a debt not been statute barred because the DCA had been writing to you because you had been living the same address?

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh god not again..ruddy stepchange!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are statute barred end of ignore the dca's.

 

what are your other debts please

why got to stepchange

 

its easy to sort this yourself with our simple help.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stepchange have a vested interest to keep the Statute Barred debt alive.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am behind one month with my mortgage payments although on the last letter it states I am not. There is a reserve account linked to the mortgage which is £300 over the limit which has accrued through interest as hasn't been touched for years.

I have a large bill for water rates £2k+

I believe this happened as direct debit didn't go through a couple of times and was then cancelled. I wasn't aware as was not opening post. So I still need to set up current payments again as well as arranging to repay the debt.

I also have a personal overdraft of £3.5k which I find myself up to the limit at the end of every month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are statute barred end of ignore the dca's.

 

what are your other debts please

why got to stepchange

 

its easy to sort this yourself with our simple help.

 

dx

 

Thanks for the reply dx.

I was advised to go to Stepchange as I'm not confident about sorting things out myself. I realise that sounds ridiculous, but I have little to no support and my mental health has not been great over the years. I know that the mortgage accounts are my priority debts at the moment. With very little disposable income, I was under the impression that debtors would be more likely to agree a plan with someone like stepchange. If I go ahead with the dmp - should I ask them not to include the old debts then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is really what step change said then they have misled you. I rather hope that there was some misunderstanding.

 

The only conditions for a statute barred debt is that it has been six years since the last payment which was due was missed. Alongside that there must've been no acknowledgement of the debt. In other words since the last missed payment, you have not agreed that you are in debt and that you do over money.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with DCA's writing regularly or the fact that you continue living at the same address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is really what step change said then they have misled you. I rather hope that there was some misunderstanding.

 

The only conditions for a statute barred debt is that it has been six years since the last payment which was due was missed. Alongside that there must've been no acknowledgement of the debt. In other words since the last missed payment, you have not agreed that you are in debt and that you do over money.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with DCA's writing regularly or the fact that you continue living at the same address.

 

Thank you Bankfodder. Yes, that's right. There has been no acknowledgement and no payments since 2011. Does it make a difference that my mortgage is with the same original creditors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way mortgages become statute barred after 12 years

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are saying that your mortgage account and other credit accounts happen to be with the same lender then no, it makes no difference. They are distinct separate debts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big tip

Get your income out of the. OD account

Open a parachute account

 

Pers I don't think you even need a DMP at all

 

Take control its YOUR money

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would want it included in any DMP they arranged as it is SB and over 6 years old it won't be on any credit report and unenforceable ,t if you feel you have to pay it on m ral grounds then Stepchange will only be too happy to include it into what debts you pay on the drip.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

they get paid a percentage so the more debts you pile into their lap the more money the make.

 

Many people like to take a moral high ground on debt as the debt hasnt actually gone away, it just cant be enforced by anyone.

However, you can bet that the bank has written the amount off and that has appeared in its accounts to reduce their tax burden for that year

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely EB considering the usurious rates of interest on some of these old debts.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...