Can you tell us when each account started please, as this will have an affect on what law is relevant....

Hi all, because of my workload meaning that I don't have very much time to help family members at the moment, I've built a very simple web form that allows them to input the required details directly into the templates that are featured on the cag. I'm currently going through the process of applying the form to each of the templates that they might need so that they can simply put in the details and print out the letters as and when they need them. Since I've built the thing anyway and it will be up and about, I was just wondering whether any members here may find it to be of any use to them? If anyone would be interested then they would be more than welcome to make use of it. If people are interested in it, could a member of the team tell me if I would be allowed to post a link to it? A member of the site team can message me privately for a link if they want to look at it first. If nobody's interested, then no offence taken..... I just thought I'd offer since it's there anyway. Cheers UF

Exactly right. Despite what creditors and DCA's might try and make you believe, a telephone call or letter of dispute/denial are not capable of restarting the clock. S30 is very clear about what can constitute an acknowledgement for the purposes of setting a new starting date for limitation.

Not entirely true, strictly speaking. Firstly, simply hearing from a debtor, for example in a telephone call, is not enough to restart the clock. To restart the clock, an acknowledgement of the debt has to be made. This acknowledgement must be in writing and should be signed by the debtor if it is to effectively restart the "clock". Limitation Act 1980 30.— Formal provisions as to acknowledgments and part payments. (1) To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it. A simple letter, unless upon construction it can be said that the letter actually acknowledges the debt, cannot restart the clock. Also, whilst the 6 year time limit may be accurate for the majority of cases seen on these forums, it is not fair or true to say this is always the rule. As has been noted previously in this thread, there are some instances where the limit will be set at 12 years - for example money being claimed as owing under a mortgage. Cheers UF

Limitation Act 1980 5. Time limit for actions founded on simple contract. An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. A simple contract is any contract not contained within a deed. When you take out an overdraft, you enter into a simple contract - albeit a regulated contract. On that basis, there can be no argument, in my opinion, against the fact that an overdraft is statute barred pursuant to S5 Limitation Act 1980 after 6 years. Cheers. UF

Ok I'm not going to get into another meaningless and, ultimately, pointless and ongoing debate on here. I'm not writing it off because it comes from another country; if you notice, I mentioned that it could be persuasive precedent. However, is it LAW in this country? No! There may be another statute from this country that says the same things; in which case we chould find and use that. This is, of course, unless you are aware of case law that does state that this law is good for this country. Could the foreign Act that you posted become law, through precedent, at some time in the future? Yes, of course it could. I've had a similar discussion on a different thread and my personal view remains unchanged. I strongly believe that firstly any advice given should be with regards to what the law is, in this country, right now. Then, and only then, should we speculate about what could be used in speculative argument to change things. You may disagree, and that's fine. I have succeeded in my aim which was to make light of the fact that the law was not UK and, thus, has no automatic effect here. All the best Cheers UF

Sorry, this is simply not correct in the slightest. Whilst it could be held as persuasive precedent whilst deciding on the interpretation etc of a law in this country, an Act created purely by the Government of a former Commonwealth country does not apply, per se, in this country. Cheers UF

Definitelye agree that the burden of proof should now be placed on them to justify why they need to rely on Reg 9 and prove this.

Definitely agreement from me - that's what should happen. I'm just slightly concerned that we've come across these regs that allow T&C's for old agreements and, now, I'm wondering if there are any other issues with such old agreements that we haven't come across yet.... I sure hope not!!! But yes, as I'd previously indicated, I think that whilst they may have fulfilled their obligations under the CCA as far as the OP's request goes - I don't think they'd have much of a case in court. But obviously I don't know this for certain, it's just a guess so to speak. Cheers UF

No, neither am I on that front... but we certainly need to keep Reg 9 in mind whilst we try and fathom it out.... Diddy, I definitely agree and this is where I've been struggling with this Reg 9 - in that it only deals with requirements to provide information under the CCA. It doesn't deal with the burden of proof in court - and thus, I don't know what would happen. I definitely think I agree with you that it's good to try and make them prove their assertions, as always. Also, if the OP is unsure as to when the agreement was opened, I would personally be writing to them disputing that fact to try and force them to prove that aspect as well. Just my thoughts though. Cheers. UF

Well unfortunately it looks like the "get out clause" as you name it, at least for pre-1985 agreements, is in Regulation 9 of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983/1557 I know this seems crazy, it is crazy. And it's certainly not a situation that comes up very often here on the CAG - purely because of the age of the agreement. But the above regulation is in force and, therefore, appears to allow them to simply send the current Terms and Conditions IF the original agreement is unavailable through some reason outside of their control. Having said that, I STILL have no idea how this would apply in a court - because while that may have fulfilled their obligations as far as a S78 / S79 request, I don't know if any of the paperwork they have supplied (in conjunction with Reg9 and the S78/9 request) would be accepted by a Judge as proving their case. Cheers UF

I'm aware of that, but I'm not aware of there being such a ruling in relation to an agreement that was entered into before 1985 - and would thus bring regulation 9 into play? Unless you've come across a case that has evaded me? Cheers UF

I agree entirely that it would be more than reasonable to expect the creditor to prove that. But I can't see how they can be deemed as obliged to do so under a standard CCA Request, when the regulations as shown expressly allow that their obligation be fulfilled by simply providing the current terms and conditions, so long as the original agreement is not available through some fault outside of their control. In this instance it appears, to me, that it is impossible to reconcile what is just and reasonable and what is the law. Having said that, I do believe that they have fulfilled their obligations so far as the CCA Request goes - I am not so sure that they would have any kind of case in court without at least a copy of the original. On that front, as I have said, I simply do not know........ Cheers UF

Hi Diddy, I'm just wondering how that might be, if the account was opened pre-1985, given the rather express wording of Regulation 9, as quoted in post #69? I'm not saying you're wrong, as you may well be totally correct - but I'm struggling to get my head around this with regards to the above. Cheers UF

Here you go, hopefully this is the one you want Cheers UF ________ Dear Sir/Madam You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves. I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name). I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading debt collectionGuidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question. I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods. Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment. I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question. I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions. I/we look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully ________

Sounds very much like they're chancing their arms, to me!! Keep the print out that shows when you believe your last payment was. Even in the event that it would not be statute barred, I still personally cannot understand how they believe that you have reset the SB clock. Please see below. Can the OP please confirm that the only contact from themselves has been via email?? If that is the case, then unless someone has some information that I don't, I cannot see that it can reset the clock - and so worst case scenario is that the alleged debt becomes stat barred in November...... _________ Limitation Act 1980 S30 (1) To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it. (2) For the purposes of section 29, any acknowledgment or payment— (a)may be sent by the agent of the person by whom it is required to be made under that section; and (b)shall be made to the person, or to an agent of the person, whose title or claim is being acknowledged or, as the case may be, in respect of whose claim the payment is being made. _________

Why a little confused? What did the court say? UF

I can't quite get my head round that - I have seen that thread on another forum and I still can't quite fathom it out. I'm at a loss as to how, exactly, all the various provisions of law would apply in conjunction with each other in a case such as this. I've tried to get some help from someone more experienced in the court process for you so that we might be able to move the thread forwards. All the Best. Cheers. UF

I do, however, think that the OP should investigate the possibility of claiming for charges and PPI, as this may be of benefit!!

Once again, I agree with you!! The odds of ending in court are very slim. But personally I feel that it is better to be prepared in advance for the worst case scenario. We do appear to be splitting hairs, between us, now. Returning purely to the topic of the thread, the OP was enquiring for opinions as to whether his pursuers has complied with his request. My view is that they have and that what they have sent would be deemed enforceable in its original form. As to its form as a copy, as I have said, purely speculative. All the best. Cheers. UF

Aha, my apologies, I can see now where we may be crossing wires, somewhat... I don't mean that the court can make an improperly executed agreement enforceable... I simply mean that, in my opinion, if that document was placed before a judge (in its original form) it would, in itself, be considered as a properly executed agreement. Whether this is correct or not, I cannot be certain, but I consider it more likely than not that, certainly in its original form, it would be considered a properly executed. This is obviously a matter of opinion though and, quite clearly, any view expressed on this particular issue is mere speculation as to what would be found in the County Court. I will have a root around and try and pop back with links etc, as you say, as this may help in some way. All the Best. Cheers. UF

I agree, once again, that an agreement is not properly executed if not signed by the lender as well as the alleged debtor; but once again, the Judiciary have time and time again showed that they are not willing to consider an agreement unenforceable simply on this basis, if all other necessary terms are present. As a matter of interest, could the OP confirm whether the copy that has been posted does, indeed, contain a signature for the lender? It looked to me, when I looked, that it did have and it had been removed prior to posting here. All the best. Cheers. UF

I agree entirely that there are situations that we are all aware of where Judgments have been won on the basis of appalling documentation - or lack of documentation!! But I have personally never heard of a case going to court on the back of an agreement in the form of an application, where all of the prescribed terms were present, and be thrown out by the judge as not being an agreement simply because it was on a document "headed application"... Again, I'm not saying it has never happened, but I am certainly not aware of it having happened. I totally respect that everyone has their own opinion and I am certainly not an expert, in any way shape or form. But I honestly believe that what is there would be considered an agreement - certainly if it were produced in its original form. Whether or not it would be accepted in its copied form is a matter of pure speculation - it would, my understanding is, entirely depend on whether the court is satisfied as to the copy's authenticity. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree, however, and in my view it is healthy to have an open debate and allow the OP to make up their own mind. All the best. Cheers. UF

Yes, since you have already received documents under a SAR, I would definitely go through them and add up any charges. Also, take a look for default notices etc!! Did you receive a default notice? Have you posted it up to check that it is valid? Cheers UF

Also, we do need to distinguish at least a little bit between the Manchester Test Cases and this discussion... simply because I am not talking about reconstructed agreements, I am talking about direct copies....