Defaults have been registered after 6 years because the courts do not consider a default as enforcement and the fact that the money is still owed just not enforceable

Your post 8 "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". There is no ambiguity if you don't admit the debt pre 6 years its the LAST payment NOT default. As another has already stated if it were a default which triggers limitation creditors would never issue defaults

That is of course unless they are going to send on gardening leave on full pay for 1year

R&J the clause stating the 'whole' of the UK is to sweeping & I have little doubt that a court would see it as a restriction of trade

Some disingenuous creditors & their DCA's do make such arguments as do some CC Judges in what has regrettably become a Judicial lottery but they are ALL wrong the act clearly states "the last payment". For goodness sake if a creditor can't get their act together in the following 6 years then they don't deserve to get paid

UF re-read your 3rd para "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" Note it states LAST payment & NOT default This means that when the creditor considers litigation they, should for limitation purposes, diary their file from the date of the LAST payment

A person acknowledges the debt by making a payment therefore limitation runs from that date. If it were missing a payment that would allow the creditor to exploit the act by claiming a next payment wasn't due until goodness knows when

Because none of the British banks want to challenge the status quo

Oh dear the OFT doesn't like DCA's using premium rate numbers like 0807 so that's a double whammy:D Is there an alternative on no to 0807?

I should have said it was Argentinian Cattle Barons producing beef in Brazil

It appears the judge may have put themselves on inquiry hence the 1 hour hearing. & from the OP's earlier post I suspect the court may have formally summoned Mr Davies to attend therefore I don't think a 'grovelling' letter will negate their requirement to attend the hearing

Oh dear 1 post & you know how to contact Barry & imply that by contacting their SA call centre they'll sort it. Incidentally how do you know they "know all about it" are they divulging information to complete strangers now???? OP Capquest are desperate not to appear in court as not only might the courts come down hard for their abuse of the process they also gave assurances to the OFT NOT to use SD's to collect consumer debts

Well done in particular for not accepting their word that they wouldn't pursue the SD. Its not unknown for some victims to be lulled into a false sense of security, not attending court only to find they have & got their Judgment by default making it much more difficult (& costly) to defend

According to the litigants MD in buying Argentinian Beef were helping to destroy the Amazon Rain Forests. Its understood that MD since the trial now purchase their beef local to each operation

Blackfriars who act for Utilities are sending out letters, many of which are NOT demands, where printed on the back of the envelope, for all to see, is "If undelivered please return to Blackfriars Debt Collectors, Units 2 & 3 Blackfriars Road, Nailsea, Bristol, BS48 4DJ" Needless to say when contacted they didn't know it was unlawful amounting to harassment they thought they had a right to do it:-x Please note: The bold emphasis on the words debt collectors are mine

If the debt is unknown to you its highly probable they have the wrong person. In the meantime do nothing until your sure 6 years has passed Don't let them con you by claiming that just because they have written to you means that limitation is extended, it IS NOT It would only extend if you made a payment prior to the 6 year limitation

Point out that by extorting money under false pretences they are committing fraud as per the 2006 Fraud Act (send them a copy)

As they are extorting money under false pretences (& they know it) send them a copy of the 2006 Fraud Act that should get their attention:D

BBC NEWS | UK | McLibel: Longest case in English history

There is a precedent in that the McLibel 2 even though they lost against McDonalds they won damages against the UK & one of the main concerns of the EU court was that legal aid was not available to them. Therefore the trail was not fair & a clear breach of Article 6 They also criticised the law in that there was little protection for those who spoke out against corporations which affected the everyday lives of citizens & the environment. They thought our libel laws too erroneous. Of course in this regard they are wrong its the Judgments that have been too erroneous

They already know some are ignoring it in the hope the victims won't know they have been the subject of a con

PRIVATE blue badge parking bays are meaningless. If you don't display a badge there is no sanction & the money paid out by the elderly couple was taken under false pretences. I suggest they contact the store & demand a refund. Don't let them cloud the issue by claiming they have to contact the parking company they don't. IN fact if they decided to sue it would be the store they would name in the claim NOT the parking firm

Lubbly jubbly:D

Quite Discrimination is also why they have now removed the limited parking rule on disabled bays

Being a blue badge holder I have to regrettably say that a disabled bay such as those in a supermarket CP have no means of enforcement. Its hoped (sometimes forlornly) that the able-bodied will leave them free for the disabled but if they don't there's no sanction