In most cases it will be the last payment - where a payment has been made after the initial cause of action occurred. In the case of a payment simply being missed and then no further payments being made, then it could very well be argued that this is the date concerned and in this case S29 would not be relevant because there would not have been any further payment or acknowledgement of the debt after the initial cause of action occurred. When DCA's commonly make reference to defaults, they are not talking about when the payment was missed, but rather when they issued a default notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act. Their claims that this is the date are obviously obsurred; as they could simply delay issuing one massively.

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse; to clarify the situation it is as JonCris says above and what I was trying to explain, albeit somewhat hurriedly: The initial "clock" for statute barring begins when you miss your first payment as this is the initial cause of action. If you make no further payment or acknowledgement of the debt then this is the date from which the 6 years will run. You surely have to have missed a payment in order for them to be chasing you for the money - if you haven't missed a payment then there would be no claim in most instances. However, as shown by S29(5) Limitation Act 1980, if any acknowledgement or payment is received after this date, then the cause of action for the purposes of the Limitation Act will be deemed to run from the date of that last payment and/or acknowledgement. So, effectively, it is from the last payment and/or acknowledgement of the debt in most cases. Be it the missed payment, a further payment or any other acknowledgement of the debt. To be extra clear, however, in the case of missing a payment and then not making any further payments, then it could easily, as is my understanding, be argued that the cause of action occurred when that payment was missed. In this case, I think that the missed payment would be the date from which the clock would tick and not the month before when the last payment was made. As for definitive answers; unfortunately in law there is often certain degrees of ambiguity surrounding matters. There are no doubt people who take different views and interpretations on these things. But the above posts are my understanding of the currently and most widely accepted interpretation of the relevant statute. Hope this clarifies things. Cheers UF

The above is, of course, for situations where there has been no Judgment awarded on the account - if Judgment has ever been awarded on the account then the above information would not apply. Cheers UF

This is a common ploy by DCA's and it has consistently been shown as wrong. Statute Barring occurs after 6 years (5 in Scotland) from the date that the cause of action occurs - as in you missed a payment or acknowledged the debt. This position, as I understand it, has been consistently shown to be accurate. Further, it would be absurd to suggest that the cause of action occurred when the default was issued, because then simply no creditors would ever issue a default, therefore circumnavigating the will of Parliament and the Limitation Act 1980. Now as the CAUSE OF ACTION - as in the thing that happened that gives the company concerned the right and reason to proceed against you with an action - is that you missed a payment, then the 6 year period has to run from that date. Part payment and/or acknowledgement can, obviously, have the effect of resetting this "clock": Personally I'd send them the stat barred letter from the template library and be done with them. Hope this helps. Cheers UF

Bear in mind that post 2007 CCAs don't need to have signature etc as the amendments made provisions for accounts to be set up online. I don't know how many credit agreements Vanquis actually have copies of, but it's not accurate to say that it's unlikely they have any simply because the accounts were opened online. Cheers UF

Call me cynical but I don't like the wording of that "offer"... if you're happy to pay 20% in full and final then I would personally, if in the same position, make a written offer to the same effect making clear that they must provide a conclusive written statement that the payment will be in full and final settlement of the debt BEFORE a single penny is paid. Personally, whenever I make a full and final settlement I also get the payment cheque to be made out by a third party such as a relative and, with the cheque, enclose a letter from that third party stating that the cheque is only to be cashed if it is accepted in full and final settlement.... it's just another technique to make sure that they can't go back on their word because doing so would constitute a fraud on the third party. Cheers UF

I might be very tired, given that insomnia has now kept me up for nearly 38 hours, but the more I think about this, the less it makes sense that the point mooted could be accurate. One such thought going through my head is that the debtor having "gone away" in no way detracts from a creditors ability or right to sue; they are entitled to sue at the last known address and this has not, to the best of my knowledge, changed. On that basis it would be inequitable to allow such an excuse to delay the limitation periods prescribed. I'm still trying to find anything that suggests that such an argument has been accepted at all, let alone on a regular basis. Cheers UF

I'm still unable to find anything other than what the Limitation Act specifically prescribes; i.e. payment or acknowledgement. I'm not giving up, however, and will persevere and keep searching. Between us we must be able to shed some light on this topic. UF

Agreed and seconded!! Although I do still think it's potentially helpful to us to think of the next devious steps DCA's etc could take and argue, so as to be better prepared for them. And if a DCA troll wants to give us a heads up of their next move then I say let them crack on; it just gives us extra time to rebut their silly arguments. Finally, I do like to think that I am somewhat of a devil's advocate; but on the right side of the fence!! I'd rather think of their arguments and let the good people of the cag tear them to pieces... Cheers UF

Hahaha I'll bear that in mind... if ever my career path takes a serious turn for the worst, I'll see that you get that cheeseburger mate UF

Hahaha I have to love that!! Very good indeed, I love starting the morning with a good chuckle

Haha yeah I thought so UF

Ummm..... sorry was that directed at me or Et Contra Pacem Regis....? UF

As far as the law in concerned, you are entitled to request a copy of the credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, at any time (so long as you haven't already been furnished with a copy of it within the last 30 days if I remember correctly) regardless of whether or not you have been making payments. On that basis, you are entitled to make the request as previously posted by debt4get and if you choose to do so and they do not comply within the 12 days prescribed by the Act (+2 days for postage) then the debt becomes unenforceable until such as time as they do comply. As for the question of whether you should keep paying; this is totally and completely a personal decision. Many (the majority from what I can see) of caggers choose to stop making payments after the prescribed time limit is up if the company concerned fail to fulfil their obligations. Other caggers choose to keep paying. Personally, I prescribe to the view of the former and always stop payments if the company go into default of a cca request. Hope this helps. Cheers UF

How the hell do you propose that they can serve a Default Notice on a contract that they've ALREADY ended? That is the whole defence, or do you not get this point? The defence is that they unlawfully ended your contract by not following the proper protocol. If what you're saying is true and they could get around this fact by simply sending a new DN, then the contract would HAVE TO STILL BE IN FORCE and therefore there would be no defence at all. This is quite clearly not the case. When they purport to terminate the contract and remove your facilities, they end the contract; therefore there is nothing in the future upon which they can serve a DN. This is all only in my humble opinion, obviously, and I proclaim not to be an expert; but I suspect my motives are considerably more genuine than yours and I credit myself with an ability to read and digest information. Fact is we could name probably hundreds of cases just were people from cag have used this defence successfully. I don't think even a well prepared lip would lose to the argument you put forward, let alone any professional worth his weight in even sea water, never mind salt or gold!!!! I personally think this thread is a FANTASTIC thing and long may it remain.... And before any caggers think I've temporarily gone insane and thrown all morals out the window; I think it's a great idea because all new (and existing) caggers can now see at first sight the flimsy, underhand tactics and arguments employed by the credit and dca industry and, more importantly, could be a great place to see the arguments used to rebutt the (often) ridiculous points placed forwards by such an industry. Just in the few hours this thread has been here, we've seen steps towards completely tearing down such argument and showing it for what it is. Potentially quite helpful to other caggers, I think, if everyone can see, in one place, a "dossier" or "index" of these arguments - followed by other experienced caggers shredding them to pieces. Cheers UF P.S. Et Contra Pacem Regis (aka - "and against peace you rule" - apt name, btw), time to come clean mon petit choux-fleur; who are you working for - what dca/bank/credit company? What has been the plan? What is it - seen so many trolls get torn to shreds within a post or two, so make some posts, try to gain respect and confidence and then trap unsuspecting debtors through dodgy advice? A covert operation like you're trying to be a baddie from a James Bond film? If so then bad luck, mon ami, because caggers know what you're about....

Exactly the trains of thoughts that I've been going along.... I've gone through the Limitation Act a trillion times now and I can't find anything, hence I've been searching for any authority on the matter to try and see if any superior court has ever taken such a parculiar interpretation of the law... and low and behold here I still am at 20 to 4 in the morning and still nothing Must.... sleep.... Night all UF

In that instance (where one has failed to inform oc) would that prevent a debt becoming stat barred though...? I still can't figure that it would and I can't find any authority to that effect despite having been trying all day.... I will continue trying tomorrow. Cheers UF

Was that a thread on here or was it an article somewhere else? I ask because I've never heard of it and surely the DCA industry would have been all over this if that was the case? There's certainly nothing within the Limitation Act that prescribed that as the case - as far as I'm aware :/ UF

Nothing suprises me with this lot anymore... I've dealt with them a number of times over the last few years for various friends and relatives and for myself once or twice and they really do seem to be a law unto themselves!! Ah well, we're going to revert to ignoring this bunch of chancers until they actually do something worth doing!! They've got no chance of getting judgment by default at previous address as we've got ample evidence of them communicating effectively via current address; so whatever they do or don't do, we'll know about it and be able to take any necessary steps It just really infuriates me how these people behave.... but we'll just sit back and wait for them... we've given them enough rope with which to hang themselves I feel, so lets just hope they use it Cheers UF

Thing is it's not just the illegibility of what they've provided... the agreement supplied is clearly void of many prescribed terms and so is unenforceable anyway... this is why we've told them we're not giving them anything!! Cheers UF I am a first year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. If you are in doubt, always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Definitely!! I personally don't send a cca request if it's REALLY close to being statute barred.... I always either opt to ignore and wait it out, or send a standard prove it letter.... just my approach though, obviously, and others may have different approaches and views. Cheers UF

As far as I am aware, a denial of a debt cannot be seen as an acknowledgement of it; by definition surely one cannot be the same as the other.... ? What are the alleged debts for? When was the last payment or acknowledgement? How long until you believe they are statute barred? Who is contacting you and what are they saying? The answers to these will help people give you advice on what to do next. Sometimes I've sent the prove it letter to effectively stretch things out when they have been very close to the statute barred limit and I have not, personally, heard of any case where sending a prove it style letter has been taken by a court to constitute an acknowledgement of the debt - although I can't say there has never been such an instance. Cheers UF

I've had to look into this issue lately for a friend of a friend and it turns out that certified Bailiffs acting to collect magistrates court fines DO have the right to force entry using a locksmith. Bailliffs acting to collect unpaid council taxes etc still do NOT have this right however. Taken from Bailiffs and debt collectors : Directgov - Money, tax and benefits If your friend's friend is acting as a debt collector (as opposed to a certified bailiff) and is entering peoples properties by force then he is acting illegally and unlawfully and could potentially be liable for numerous torts for example trespass to the person as well as torts for trespass to land. His company (assuming he is employed) could very well be held vicariously liable. He could potentially also be found guilty of any number of criminal offences as well. To be honest he sounds like every other muppet working as a doorstep collector in this country that I've ever come across; as has been said before, they have 2 hours training and seem to think they're experts in law when, in reality, in my experience most of them are ill-educated morons... If a person is not a certified bailiff then he is merely a debt collector, this being the case then they have absolutely no rights whatsoever without a court order giving them such. If they turn up you can tell them to leave. If they refuse you can call the police. You can revoke their permission to come to your house, and you can revoke this in advance. Basically, debt collectors (as opposed to bailiffs) have as much right to enter your house without your permission as I do. Cheers UF

They might write back and accept what you've said or, more likely I think, they will either write back and claim it's not statute barred or claim that it was but is not now (impossible by the way )... or they might just ignore your letter and pass it on to another company.... Whatever happens just sit tight and keep us posted with any developments. Cheers UF

I suspect you right.... oh well I suppose I've lost another foe in my ongoing sport... never mind I'm sure there will be others I can come up against in the future Thanks for the replies everyone Cheers UF