Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


UnitedFront last won the day on January 5 2010

UnitedFront had the most liked content!


293 Excellent

1 Follower

  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 acknowledgement or part payment of the debt are made. For ease of reference I have quoted both sections below. SO WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION? If the OP has an outstanding debt that he has NOT MADE A PAYMENT ON or acknowledged in writing for 6 years, no court action can be taken. BUT if the OP has been making payments, then the 6 year time limit starts ticking at the date of the last payment. Some of the advice given so far on this thread is quite clearly palpably wrong and could cause people an awful lot of heartache. Whilst certain members may say that this has nothing to do with statute barred - IT DOES.
  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 any confusion at all, we must actually read the Limitation Act as it is written; and that means that, in technical reality, it is not that the Limitation Act prevents a court from giving Judgment but, rather, it acts to prevent any Statute Barred action from being allowed. Clearly you can see from the above quote that if an action has been started in the courts BEFORE the expiration of the 6 year period, then it will NOT become statute barred as you appear to believe. I apologise that this is not what you want to hear, nor what I want to type. But it is true and it is fact. Please don't take offence to anything that I have written / do write, I mean none. I just explain the law as best I can the way I see it. Cheers UF
  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 barred then it is clearly not statute barred. Furthermore, as I explain above, if the creditor has commenced proceedings before the debt is statute barred, which they obviously had in your example for it to have reached mediation, then the Statute of Limitation will not exclude a judgement. Hope this clears things up a little. Cheers UF
  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 as contact and, therefore, the OFT guidelines allow them to continue to try and collect. 2) As I have pointed out in my first post in this thread, the OFT Guidelines have no affect on the application of the Limitation Act 1980. 3) Therefore, also as I stated my first post in this thread, even if the OFT decide that the DCA's can continue to ask for payment, the courts cannot enforce the debt. Therefore, if the OFT say that DCA's can carry on asking for the money - that is ALL they can do.... ASK!!! Cheers UF
  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 consumer cases is DOES NOT APPLY ANY MORE!!!!! Instead please consider the contents of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations!! Now, moving onto the issue initially questioned in this thread: Put simply, it is quite irrelevant, in all honesty. Fact is, if the debt had become statute barred then there is no court in the country that can make you pay it. End of!! An alleged creditor, debt collector (or any other person) simply writing to you cannot re-start the clock. An alleged creditor, debt collector (or any other person) speaking to you on the telephone cannot re-start the clock. To restart the clock, you must either make a payment or a signed written acknowledgement (although I personally believe the omission of a signature would not be definitive if it could be proved that the letter was from the debtor and not a fake). What the OFT say on this matter has no effect on a creditor's ability to get a Judgment on a statute barred debt - there is no chance, with a proper defence!! What the OFT's guidance may mean is that the creditor can continue to write to you. They still can't do anything else to enforce the debt. Hope this clears things up slightly. Cheers UF
  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 repealed S127(3) CCA 1975 is effective and would mean that any improperly executed credit agreement WOULD be totally unenforceable. If you look through the templates library you will find an up to date CCA request template. Hope this helps. Cheers UF
  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. We are aware of all sorts of legal technicalities that can prevent these companies from getting a judgment - but I'm not aware of many at all that actually prevent them from instructing debt collectors. I'd absolutely love to be digging around trying to find the source of the law as alleged by Dom on telly, but I have far far too much uni work to do and nowhere near enough time to use on this, at the moment. However, if anyone else is aware of anything, I'd be most interested. Unfortunately I think this is another typical case of Aunty Beeb allowing things to be aired by people who are not in possession of all the facts. Yet the beeb broadcast things as fact. Unfortunately if people just take what they hear on the telly and believe it's truth without knowing where it is actually said, in law, that is actually the case. We end up looking stupid and many many people assume that they won't be chased by collection agencies when, in reality, they will. What Dom said may be true. But as a law student it ABSOLUTELY DOES MY NUT IN, when people go out and say "under the law.... XYZ" or, as Dom did, "under UK Law, XYZ" but don't actually say WHAT LAW!!!!! It makes people look stupid and unprepared when they try and say what the law is - but not where and what law!! At the end of the day, I could say "It's illegal under UK Law to eat sausages with eggs for breakfast on Tuesdays" but unless I can say WHERE that information is contained, it serves absolutely no purpose!!! Cheers UF P.S. Rant over, for the day
  • Create New...