Jump to content

UnitedFront

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    742
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

UnitedFront last won the day on January 5 2010

UnitedFront had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

293 Excellent

1 Follower

About UnitedFront

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. JUST TO ADD A SHORT CORRECTION I note that it was not the OP that the above post was relevant to, but rather an inquiry made within this thread by markstone. The OP Has obviously repaid his debt and so SB is not at issue. Markstone SB is at issue.
  2. OK I am not often on the CAG these days but since this thread has caught my eye for all the wrong reasons, here goes... FIRSTLY If you are talking about the Limitation Act 1980 then you ARE talking about a debt being (or not being) statute barred - that is what the Act is about!! SECONDLY It is true that no court action can be taken after the expiration of 6 years from the date that the cause of action accrued (s.5 Limitation Act 1980)... BUT s.29 Limitation Act 1980 makes it clear that the cause of action is taken to have accrued at a later date if a written acknowledg
  3. Ok, I wish you luck with your reply from the OFT.... everything I have ever received from them has been a whole load of wishy-washy tosh!! As I said, at least if a debt is Stat Barred then, no matter what the OFT say about collection, the courts will not enforce it if an adequate defence is offered forwards. Having put in my two pence, I will respectfully withdraw from the thread, save for any direct question. Cheers UF
  4. Ok, just to make sure we are reading from the same hymn sheet, I take it you are awaiting written clarification from the OFT on the issue of whether or not the Limitation Act applies in the situation we have described above; namely where the debt "would" become statute barred after the date that action has been started? If so, then I am sorry to say that the OFT have no jurisdiction to give any such advice. Nor would any such advice given from them have any binding effect on anyone. Such an issue is purely a matter of Judicial Interpretation. But to solve any mystery, and to clear up
  5. Also, if summary a Summary Judgment is being obtained because of the debtors ignorance of the law, and that debtor can prove that at the time the Judgment was obtained the debt was Statute Barred, then this would be solid grounds for having the Judgment Set Aside. Cheers UF
  6. Sorry Brig but you are totally misunderstanding one of the fundamental issues concerning the Statute Barring of debts: If action has been started within the time limit then the debt will not be statute barred!!! If they are within the limit by ONE DAY when they begin proceedings, then they are in time because those proceedings have been commenced within 6 years of the cause of action occurring. In the example you gave above you state that it was "days away" from being statute barred during mediation - well excuse me for stating the obvious, but if it is "days away" from being statute
  7. It does not matter one little jot whether it says COULD, WILL, MIGHT or anything else BECAUSE IT CANNOT AMOUNT TO HARASSMENT UNDER S40 AJA 1970 IN CONSUMER CASES BECAUSE THAT SECTION NO LONGER APPLIES!!!!!!! It has been changed, amended, altered, added to, but however you phrase it, the section does not apply to most of our cases any more!!!!!! Now, can somebody please enlighten me as to the point of this thread now? As far as I can fathom, it appears like this: 1) Some DCA's are attempting to circumvent the Statute of Limitations by arguing that their letter writing counts
  8. The OFT Guidelines were drawn up and published before the law changed. Once again, S40 AJA 1970 DOES NOT APPLY!!! It has been amended so as to exclude consumer debt situations. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?287720-S40-Administration-of-Justice-Act-1970-irrelevant-to-this-forum-in-almost-all-circumstances-use-CPUTR-s-instead!! Cheers UF
  9. RIGHT let us see if we can't clear some very simple things up, first of all: 1) Statute Law is supreme and cannot be struck down or dis-applied by any judge, in any court, in this country (bar some very peculiar and unusual situations involving EU Law etc). 2) The OFT Guidelines are just that - GUIDELINES!! Holders of a Consumer Credit License agree to abide by them, but they can NEVER EVER EVER EVER be considered as in any way over or above any Legislation made by our Queens sovereign Parliament!! 3) PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT SECTION 40!!!! In
  10. Despite what you have received looks like..... please please please phone the court directly and check with them that the claim has been discontinued!!!! Cheers UF
  11. Firstly, I personally don't ever sign anything. Just print your name, if anything. Secondly, that letter is well out of date and factually incorrect. Firstly it is no longer a criminal offence to fail to provide a copy of the credit agreement. Secondly, for agreements entered into since April 2007 there is no need for the agreement to be signed. For improperly executed (no prescribed terms etc) agreements entered into after that date, they are NOT totally uninforceable; they are only enforceable by order of the courts. If the agreement is entered into before 2007, however, the now r
  12. Well if you've previously made a cca request and they haven't provided a copy of the agreement, then send the account in dispute letter. UF
  13. Sorry, when you said you received a poor quality cca I thought you meant an application form type thing? Like the thing you would have signed when you applied for the card? Such application forms can constitute a properly executed credit agreement, but many do not. Cheers UF
  14. Is it enforceable? Contains all necessary prescribed terms? Perhaps if you can remove personal data and post up, people can take a peek and see what is though? Cheers UF
  15. Ok, have got BBC One's "Don't Get Done, Get Dom" on in the background as I bash out some coursework.... He's dealing with a consumer credit debt on behalf of an elderly woman. Dom has just said, on national TV, that under UK Law it is illegal for a creditor to instruct debt collectors once there is a dispute on an account, until that dispute is resolved. Now, whilst I must say that I would be ecstatic if the above were true. In fact, I wish it were. However, I'm in somewhat of a mucking fuddle.... in that I'm not aware of anything in law that would prevent them from doing so. W
×
×
  • Create New...