Okay that’s good advice thanks

Hi I was hoping someone with experience of similar situations may be able to help out with advice: - in May I received a demand from the council for £380 including costs for council tax relating to a property I sold 10 yrs ago. The council seem to have recently discovered my new address and asked for payment. I have no records of the debt and asked for correspondence to prove the sum is due. This took weeks of back and forth however it would appear that the council sent a summons and served a liability order using an out of date and as it happens incorrect address (the post code was typed wrongly). These never arrived. - at the time the property was empty and there was a full exemption which was used up and then 50 % became due for a period of 6 months until the house was sold. I was unaware of this change and the debt was a huge surprise. - In the course of disputing the debt the council then found that I owed a second property and it had lain empty for 2 months in between letting during the same period of time as the arrears for the first property. They have added court costs and this is £285. The liability order is over 10 years old and they have me down as living at this property and they have not yet sent me a liability order so I do not know where it was sent. In fact during this time I was travelling and at neither place. Since the correspondence address they used for property 1 (which may also have been used for property 2 was wrong I received no notice of the debt and have no bank records dating back to then. - the council have threatened me with bailiffs if I do not pay up within 2 days. - I understand that there is no statutory limitation to the liability order. However: 1) can a bailiff still seize goods from my current address based on a liability order for an old address 10 years ago. 2) can the council claim council tax for two properties in the same borough covering the same period if they say I am resident at one does that exclude the liability on the other? 3) If they have used the wrong post code would a stat dec that I never received the summons or reminder because of the incorrect post code help my situation. 4) I am struggling to find funds for this out of the blue so need time to pay it and/or refute it? I just want to buy time if I can - would a compliant to the ombudsman help delay things? Thanks for any help or advice you can give on this. stan

I would be grateful for any advice on the next steps I should take to avoid repossession of my property when the hearing listed for 12 April takes place. Background: In 2007 I purchased a flat with my wife. This property was rented out until August 2011. We would receive any post addressed to us from the tenants. In February 2012 (having moved into the property in August 2011) we received a letter from a landlord which claimed that we owed ground rent arrears (but only back to January 2009) totalling £500 plus late payment fees and interest (in all a total of £952). Up to this date we thought that the ground rent was included in the sums we paid as service charge and we had never been asked to pay rent to anyone nor had we received any previous correspondence relating to ground rent. I contacted the solicitor acting for the landlord and offered to pay the £500 ground rent but queried the fees of £452 since I had never previously been asked to pay ground rent and I wanted to see copies of the correspondence requesting it. The solicitor refused to accept the part payment (as they described it) and told me that the landlord was unable to generate copies of any correspondence it had sent me because none were kept on file. They had records of the dates when letters and notices were sent to me and that was all. I wrote to them saying that I would be prepared to pay a portion of the fees but since I hadn't received the letters I didn't think it was reasonable to ask for payment in full. I heard nothing more and forgot about the issue entirely. In January 2013 I received a possession claim form and shortly after that a notice of hearing dated 12 April. The amount claimed in arrears was now £1,950. I contacted the solicitor again and this time it was a different person daling with it. She asked me to send copies of the email exchanges in Feb 2012 which I did. I informed her that I had no had any prior notice of the court proceedings and couldn't see how they could run up costs without my involvement. She then sent me a letter dated Novemeber 2012 which again I had not received. I offered to pay £1,200 to settle the claim and this was refused by the landlord via its solicitor. They seemed adamant that my mortgage company would pay the full sum. In the event I filed a defence and when I showed it to the mortgage company they accepted that there was a genuine disoute and declined to become involved unless there was a real risk to their security. In correspondence with the landlord's solicitor I was also able to clarify that the reason there was any delay in seeking the ground rent was because the landlord had only taken over the freehold in March 2010. I then filed a defence arguing that: 1) some of the sums claimed as ground rent preceded the date of ownership by the current landlord (they claimed arrears and fees dating back to January 2009); 2) the lease entitled the landlord to reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by it in enforcing the lease but not to late payment fees - accordingly these fees were not owed; 3) the sums claims as legal costs were excessive and unreasonable given that these had been incurred without recourse to me and with no attempt to respond to my email in Feb 2013; 4) the landlord had in fact refused to accept the ground rent and on that basis could not seek the costs of the possession claim some £654; 5) the legal costs had not been itemised and were duplicative (namely fixed costs had been claims in addition to the actual legal costs incurred in preparing the claim and aland registry fee had been claimed twice); 6) there was no evidence the landlord had ever actually served a section 3 notice on me (it was unable to produce copies)and thus it could not show that it had ever notified me of its ownership and name and address and on that basisd I denied there was any right to the rent; 7) finally, i argued that forfeiture of the lease would not be proportionate and would be a breach of article 8 since my family (including two young children live in the flat). Since I issued the defence the landlord has offered to accept £1,600 to settle the dispute as a gainst the total claimed of £1,952. The questions I have are as follows: 1) should I accept this offer to avoid the risk of losing my property; 2) if I do accept it is there anything I need to be wary of (i.e. do i need to seek relief from forfeiture which might have further costs implications or have we not reached the stage of the existing lease being forfeited yet as the hearing has not taken place); 3) given the defence above should I apply additional pressure on the landlord by making an application to strike out the possession claim? If I did that is it likely that the application would succeed. 4) are there any other tactics I could employ to get the costs claimed down to a reasonable level? Thanks very much for any advice you can give me - I appreciate your help. Kind regards Michael

Well today I had a break through. As I mentioned earlier SLC have always maintained the position that they were entitled to register a default regardless of the fact the debt is statute barred. They refused to amend my credit file stating that the information was correct. Since that date (following advice on this forum) I did the following: 1) requested a copy of all CCAs enclosing the correct fee; 2) sent a DSAR for all data relating to these loans; and, 3) made a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the SLC policy and board minutes relating to defaults of loans. I also re-opened the Equifax dispute on the grounds that: a) SLC had acknowledged (in their response to my earlier Equifax online query) that the debt was statute barred at the time of default; and, b) the correct default date appeared to be in 2000 and not 2008 when they sent a demand for repayment in full of the statute barred debt. Finally, I submitted a correction note to Equifax which set out the legal position and requested that Equifax place this on my file. Today I received a response from SLC (via Equifax) which stated that they had taken advice and although the debt was legally due and owing in 2008 they have been advised that the default could not be registered because it was statute barred at that time. They agreed to amend and withdraw the default in their next filing. I telephoned Equifax and insisted that they had an obligation as data controllers to rectify incorrect information straight away and not at the next filing date. The upshot is that they have agreed to remove the default today. Needless to say I have had no direct correspondence from SLC on this even though I wrote to them twice in December and called them 4 or 5 times chasing for a resolution. I even offered on a "without prejudice" basis to pay the loan in full in return for a complete withdrawal of the default which they refused. Thankfully, the mortgage offer was eventually reinstated - although subject to stricter conditions than had previously been offered. The only financial loss I have suffered therefore is legal fees (the mortgage company requested a legal opinion on the validity of the default), postage costs and the cost of obtaining equifax reports. All in around £500. The main issue is the amount of anxiety this caused me when I thought I was about to lose my mortgage offer, the reputational damage and the amount of time I have spent researching this and corresponding with SLC, Equifax, the Financial Ombusman, my local trading standards officer, the information commissioner's office and my mortgage company. I estimate I have spent over 10 hours on this issue. I am contemplating a claim for damages against SLC and, if I do (once I am in a better state of mind to weigh up the risks) I will let you know how this turns out. In the meantime, thanks for your invaluable guidance and for steering me in the right direction. Hopefully, this experience will be of some use to others. Stanley

Thanks for that. I'm just not clear what the claim is - am I just asking the court to make a declaration that the default occured in March 2000 not August 2008 and an order that it be removed from my file or is it a breach of contract claim under the original credit agreement?

The problem is that although they are not meant to register a default they have. Legally it seems there is nothing to prevent them. The Student Loans Company have repeatedly acknowledged that the debt is statute barred but they say it is still due and owing and they are entitled to demand payment and if I fail to pay that is a default. I thought that the Information Commissioner's Office might come to my rescue but all they say is that they are unable to intervene unless the data is inaccurate. I have argued that it is inaccurate because it says I defaulted in 2008 rather than in 2000. I am feeling rather hopeless about this situation because I can't find any authority which says that a lending institution cannot default a statute barred debt. If they can then in theory SLC can default the loan in 6 years time and keep my credit rating in default in perpetuity. Will now do the DSAR and see what happens. If anyone has useful precedents on this please let me know.

I recived the reply below from the credit reference agency today: "Student Loans Company have correctly Registered this account, the Customer deferred and made payments to the loan until March 2000. The account went into Trace between March 2000 and September 2008, where SLC sent the account to in-house and external tracing agents. A new address was located for the customer in September 2008. The customer was then in contact with SLC and requested that account be statute barred. The customer has been advised that although the account is now Statute barred the debt is still due and monies remain unpaid."

Can they put a default notice on my file if the debt is statute barred? If so, is there anything they are obliged to say about the fact the debt was unenforceable at the time it was placed into default? Assuming I can get confirmation in writing that the debt is statute barred how do you think I should proceed. I thought the ICO would be best.

Thanks - how do I know if they have taken a copy from a microfiche rather than an original document and why is this fatal?

Does anyone know if the pre-1998 CAC used by the student loan company does contain wording allowing them to share information with credit reference agencies? I don't have my original copy.

Thanks for the advice so far. The background is fairly clear: 1999 - I believe I paid a small amount off the debt and then went abroad. 2000 - The SLC contacted my parents and were told I was overseas. As a result they put the file into abeyance. 2003 - SLC implemented a search for me but say they could not establish a current address. (I actually owned property at that stage so they were obviously not doing a rigorous search.) August 2008 - my first contact from the SLC since the call to my parents in 2000. In fact this was a demand for payment by Credit Solutions. Sept 2008 - I wrote a standard response saying that I did not acknowledge any sums were due and owing and pointed out that the debt was statute barred. I also said that any ongoing attempts to enforce this debt could amount to harrassment. Sept 2008 - I was sent an invoice from SLC showing a payment due within 7 days. I wrote back to say the debt was disputed and statute barred. Oct 08 to March 09 - sporadic telephone calls to chase for payment. Eventually I asked that they remove my number from their system June 09 - received a letter threatening to put a default notice on my credit file. I did nothing with this. 14 Nov 09 - default notice placed on my credit file (no further warnings). I only discovered this when trying to draw down my mortgage offer. The report showed a default entered by SLC. This gave a "last delinquent date" of September 2008. It also showed a start date in 1992 and one entry in the payment history showing a default in August 2008 (nothing prior to or after this). Strangely it also stated that there were 0 payments in arrears! 4 December 09 - SLC informed me that they were very comfortable that they were acting properly and in accordance with the criteria set down by credit reference agencies in registering the debt as being in default. They said the issue had been referred to their company secretary and legal adviser. They said the fact it was statute barred did not mean the debt did not exist and they weren't interested in enforcement. They said that under the terms of my CCA I had agreed they could pass on default information to credit reference organisations. I requested a copy of the CCA and they agreed to supply it. This will take 2 weeks apparently. 7 December 09 - Contacted the credit reference agency who said they did not agree with the SLC that it was acting properly in registering a default notice on a statute barred debt. They expedited the query and are taking it up direct with SLC as a matter of urgency. SLC still have 3 weeks to respond. 7 December 09 - sent SLC a letter similiar to the standard one on the system about enforcement of a statute barred claim and ICO guidance on registering a default notice within 6 months of default. (When I mentioned this guidance to the SLC they said they were acting in accordance with credit reference agency guidelines and these guidelines including in relation to statute barred claims had been agreed by the ICO). On the basis of what you have said should I now request the CAC again in writing. I was told my call had been recorded. Presumably this will be a document signed by me so that I can assess its authenticity. I hope this detail helps. For me the major concern is actually getting the default off the file in the next few days to avoid losing my mortgage offer. On a without prejudice basis SLC refused to withdraw the default even if I paid in full (apparently they can only put a note on that the debt is satified which will not help me). Thanks again

Thanks I presume all I can do is make a complaint to the ICO and hope the result is favourable. Any other avenues?

I need very urgent help on a pre-1998 loan. In August 08 I was contacted by Credit solutions requesting payment of a student loan dating back to 1995. I wrote to them and advised the debt was statute barred. In Sept 08 I received a letter from the SLC requesting payment and threatening that a default notice would be placed on my credit file if I refused. I again stated that the debt was not due and owing and had been statute barred for some time. For a period of 3/4 months after this I received continual telephone calls from SLC (sometimes 3/4 a day). I called them and asked them to refrain from this. After 2/3 calls back to them they finally stopped when I demanded that they remove my telephone number from their system. I heard nothing further for 6 months. Last week I contacted my building society to daw down a mortgage which I had arranged in August 09. They carried out a routine credit check and contacted my to say that the offer of a mortgage was withdrawn due to advice from Experian in relation to my credit worthiness. Apparently a material change in my circumstances. On looking at my experian report it appears that SLC registered a default stating that the last instance of default occurred in 2008. I called SLC and told them the debt was statute barred and the default was incorrect. They said they had taken legal advice and while it was acknowledged the debt was statutebarred they were not prepared to write it off and were within their rights to register a default. This default notice will prevent me getting credit for the next 6 years. It is clear that there was no default in 2006 and notwithstanding my threats to sue for damages as a result of my mortgage offer being withdrawn SLC are refusing to withdraw the default. EVen if I pay up this will stay on my file for the next 6 years. Do you have any advice?

Thanks - I will let you know how this develops. It would be interesting to hear if anyone has got further down the line with the student loans co. since it looks as though this is not a unique set of circumstances.

Thanks - I sent a letter in almost identical form to CapQuest and they ignored it. Have now sent a letter to SLC asking them to set out in writing why they believe the claim is not statute barred and just waiting to hear back from them. SLC said they were prepared to go to court if I refused payment - so I suppose I will need to do that but my concern is really about when we get to that stage - the onus is on SLC to show that the debt is due. Is there any case law on the factors the court will take into account at that stage? Is it as simple as them having to show that there has been an acknowledgement or payment in the previous 6 years or can they rely on the concealment of my address to get around the 6 year bar? I will do the credit reference check as well. Just checking whether the existence of a trace on there will have any material bearing. For instance, they may have attempted traces and been unable to locate me. Very useful site by the way!

Hi there, I took out 4 student loans between 1992 and 1995. I started making payments in 1999 and paid £350 in total. I then stopped making payments. The SLC sent correspondence to my parents' address in 1999 and 2000 threatening court proceedings. My Mother informed them that I no longer lived at that address. I am informed by SLC that they instructed enquiry agents who were unable to track me. They sent a letter in June 2003 to my parents' home address. That letter was never acknowledged. No payment or acknowldegement of the debt has been made by me since 1999. However, on 22 August I received a letter from CapQuest threatening CCJ action. I wrote back on 3 September to say that the debt was statute barred. On 18 September I got a statement through from SLC. I telephoned them and they asked me to set up a payment schedule. I told them I thought the debt was statute barred. The representative told me that I had a special agreement which made it incumbent on me to make the payments on time and to notify the SLC of my change of address. He accepted that I had not made a payment or acknowledged the debt in the past 6 years but said that did not matter because they had made efforts to find me and had instructed enquiry agents who were unable to locate me. His view was that since I had the obligation to inform them of my whereabouts and they had no way of finding me, their claim was not statute barred. I would appreciate an objective view on this. Is the claim statute barred? If yes, can the court exercise discretion to hear it anyway. Assuming they can, is it likely to do so in this case in light of SLC's efforts to find me and my failure to give them an address. For what its worth I would have thought they could still have issued a claim at my last known address (although I understand they did not bother). Thanks for your help on this. Its been a bit of a bolt from the blue and one of the points I made to the SLC is that I have no way of tracking my payments etc so long ago to verify that the amount they claim is due is correct. My worry is that one set of public officials body will come to the aid of the other. cheers