Sorry for the delay in responding fans. I had a real and worthy job (by the forum's own standards) to do. Debt collection practices in Australia: summary of stakeholder consultation

Dodgy debt lighten up...I thought participating in these forums is one way you become informed. The battle is just starting for me...all I'm looking for is some insight from others who have come before me. Your abuse and your false accusations are unwarranted, unfair and unfounded. I never claimed to be an expert, I was just asking questions pertinent to my situation. As for getting on your moral high-horse. I find it abhorrent that you ask for compassion for your own situation but accuse Pie & Beer call centre operators of verging on moral bankruptcy without knowing their situation.

Thanks wa Newman. Very informative. One question you might know the answer to: if a ccj was filed I believe that it can be cleared if you were not residing in the uk at the time. Do you know if this is right?

WA_Newman, congrats and thank you for the advice.

I do a great priest impersonation apparently

Thanks all for the advice. It has been helpful. DaveDu, no offence ever intended but I gather you are extremely sensitive. I don't see my comments as worrying people. I believe I have attached helpful information to this forum which in no way is misleading, You're right it was fun!

Good point Skippy. WA_Newman may be able to shed some light on this.

Skippy, I'll promise to re-look at the forum tomorrow and withdraw my comments if I'm wrong in terms of sufficient evidence. In terms of whether I work for a DCA or a law firm... I really don't know why people have jumped to this conclusion although it has mildly entertained me. All I've done is placed a different point of view on the table which had been attacked by DaveDu and then some others blindly. I appreciate that we're all just trying to protect ourselves but what I have just seen over the last few pages is an atypical exercise in group think. Apart from being wrong which I am not afraid to be the only other thing that I ask the forum for is an open and critical mind for the common good. DaveDu, how was that sermon. You're probably going through your third keyboard now!

Skippy, the debate is on whether debt re-assignment allows plonkers to transfer alledged debts legally and begin pursuit. DaveDu and many other people on this site have said no...so hey trust them. Based on the level of trust this forum has shown me I would be asking for evidence which we all don't seem to be able to find any...

Davedu, I am beginning to like you I would look it up but my legal team is on a coffee break. Perhaps instead of flaming me all the time you might like to share the evidence with all the bloggers? That would be infinitely more helpful.

I would imagine that Plonkers is banking on intimidation and ignorance to get people to admit to alledged debts. My thoughts re. alledged debts would be: 1) Never admit to the alledged debt especially in writing. If you do, s/barred status may be lifted. Admitting anything under oath is better than in writing. 2) Politely ask plonkers never to contact you again re. the alledged debt. Third parties like your family do not have to assist and can also request this. There are strict rules around contact, read the guidelines and know your rights 3) Use a lawyer to do the writing. If you need to make contact, use a lawyer to this. What I can't figure out is: 1) What does debt re-assignment mean legally for simple credit arrangements. If Plonkers are legally allowed to pursue on the grounds that they believe the debt is yours does a CCJ really matter? Does debt re-assignment change the terms of the credit agreement that was alledgedly entered into or allow Plonkers to process the transfer of credit agreements via an Australian court? 2) Although Plonkers may not be able to seek remedy for the s/barred debt that does not mean that the alledged debt is extinguished. How does that impact a credit rating? To all my fans. ASIC is considering stronger regulation of the industry. A recent paper was released on it. Based on complaints made so far and the fact that the world has just had to pay for international banking greed is more justification for stronger regulation - toxic debt transfer will be something that no country will desire to take on as it just creates more social grief for citizens. Wayne Swan went to the UK this year and told the Govt to get rid of toxic assets off balance sheets but I don't think he then meant sell it back to us! Anyway, this debt has probably been packed up and sold many times over to make a profit over the last few years but never to actually try and realise the debt collection until now and thus debts have expired. Why would you bother chasing a debt when you could sell it to someone else in some complex impossible to understand contract and make a buck? (heard of the term credit default swap - yep most bankers themselves were thinking WTF but did it anyway cause they needed a porsche) Sounds to me that Plonkers just plain got ripped off. The Troll or the mole.

For the benefit of those with s/barred debts except for cornflakegirl and davedu who have read what I attached and do not need reminding. I quote from the ASIC report on collection of s/barred debts Has the limitation period been re-started? Time may be re-started, however, if the debtor: • makes a payment; or • acknowledges the debt in writing. This has been described as giving the right of action: ‘a notional birthday and on that day, like the phoenix of fable, it rises again in renewed youth—and also like the phoenix, it is still itself’. Busch v Stevens [1963] 1 QB 1, Lawton J at 6 (Davedu, sounds like a religious experience doesn't it) To have the effect of re-setting the clock, an acknowledgment must: • be made by the debtor or a properly authorised agent of the debtor; • be written and signed; and • constitute a clear acknowledgment that the debt exists and is unpaid. Whether a document constitutes sufficient acknowledgment of the debt to re-start time can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. In Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, a limitation period can be re-started at any time—even if the original limitation period has already expired. In contrast, in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, a limitation period cannot be re-started once it expires. [...] In all jurisdictions other than New South Wales, after the limitation period expires, the legislation operates ‘to bar the remedy rather than the right’. This means that the debt remains owing, but the legislation limits the enforcement options available to the creditor. (not sure what this might entitle the DCA to do but it might mean they can mess with your credit rating...of course this would assume that they can legally pursue a debt which comes back to what is mentioned above and/or assignment of debt means and whether a CCJ is needed etc.) If court proceedings are started to recover a statute-barred debt, the debtor will be entitled to file a defence pleading expiration of the limitation period. This will be a complete defence to the claim, and if successful, will prevent judgment being obtained against the debtor. [...] Given the inconsistencies between limitation regimes and the increased centralisation of debt collection by both lenders and debt collectors, one of the key issues in ensuring compliance is knowing which legislation applies to what debts. In 1993, each state and territory enacted legislation providing a nationally consistent answer to this question. For example, section 5 of the Victorian legislation11 provides that: If the substantive law of another place being another State, a Territory or New Zealand, is to govern a claim before a court of this State, a limitation law of that place is to be regarded as part of that substantive law and applied accordingly by the court. This means, for example, that if a debt is governed by NSW legislation, the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) will apply regardless of where legal proceedings are commenced.12 (and thus in WA where Plonkers is the law of WA will apply as this is where debt alledgedly resides. Plonkers can lodge in WA but this is not recommended by ASIC as this can disadvantage debtors but again this depends on whether alledged debts can legally be pursued)

troll alert...hilarious! people can take or leave my advice. I don't think my comments are particularly inflammatory they simply look at the issue from a different angle. Davedu I never said reset at a whim but neither can an s/barred debt always remain an s/barred debt. It is an important distinction to make and people to be aware of because through ignorance they could change that status. If my legal team and I find out more about debt assignment, I'll be sure to let the forum know.

G'day daveu I would suggest you read what ASIC (a federal govt agency) has to say on statute barred debts. Let me look it up for you...it's p.8 and 9 of the report re. collection of s/barred debts. As to the CCJ issue, you're right it's a bit left field but then no one has really come back to this forum and demonstrated what debt assignment actually means either. All I'm saying here is that it might be worthwhile checking on this. While I get my medication, why don't you find out what debt assignment really means as I haven't been able to get to the bottom of than one. Cheers!

Sorry! mY question was not to you Roary but WA Newman?

G'day PFFs and supporters Thanks very much to CAG for hosting the forum and to the people so passionate about this! This has helped me immensely. I know it has been on other forums before but I think if people haven't read the ASIC reports on DCA guidelines and the report on statute barred debts I would highly recommend them. http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=733222&nodeId=ce639366376131f07fef508852fe1833&fn=Debt%20collection%20guidelines.pdf http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/statute_barred_debts_report.pdf/$file/statute_barred_debts_report.pdf There are reasons why Plonkers is based in Perth. They are empowered to reset the timeline on all statute barred debts regardless of jurisdiction and that the time difference allows them flexibility on the East Coast outside of working hours. As pointed out in this forum a CCJ is apparently required, however, I see no factual references discussing the power of Plonkers regarding this once debt has been assigned...perhaps under assignment, a CCJ is not required. Bodgit, I believe you said legal aid had something to say about this?? It would seem to me that the rush to eject toxic assets off balance sheets in the UK (probably forced by Government...the now defacto owners of the banking sector) has meant that bad debts that had "expired" are now being "re-birthed". It would seem logical that if debts can be bundled, why not a bulk CCJ which could then we prosecuted once in an Australian court? Even better, perhaps the power of assignment in Australia negates the need for this?? I believe the CCJ issue and never acknowledging liability for the debt in writing are significant issues here. Roary, hope all is OK. Did you have a CCJ outstanding that had been prosecuted through the Australian court? Cheers seevee