Jump to content

Dorytime

Registered Users no pm
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Dorytime

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I will help you to draft your Defence against the Claim based on statute barred. So don't worry! Dory
  2. Ok, no worries. Still complete the AOS and tick the box "I intend to defend all of this claim." You should also write a short letter to the solicitor's acting and state that this is a request under CPR r.31.14 for a copy of the documents mentioned by the Claimant in the Claim form, therefore, please provide a copy of the following: 1. The agreement(s); 2. The terms & conditions of the agreement(s); 3. The default notice; 4. The termination notice; 5. The notice of assignment; 6. The letter or letters sent pursuant to the protocol on debt claims. Request that copies of these documents are sent to you within 7 days of receipt of your letter (send it by Special Delivery so that you have proof of delivery!). Dory
  3. No, this will not be just a tactic, unfortunately. I had a quick read of your original thread and you say that your last payment was just under the 6 year period, what Defence did you put in against the claim? Dorytime
  4. Can you try and rack your brains to see if you can remember the month in 2013?
  5. Well in that case........the last time that you validly deferred the loan was in 2013 when you moved house, therefore you have not given any express acknowledgement of the loan to the assignee and their claim is statute barred! In Bradford and Bingley plc v Rashid (FC) [2006] UKHL 37, the House considered the limitation period under the 1980 Act and ss.29 & 30 and held that a debtor’s acknowledgment of the debt claimed means that the debt is not statute barred. Here are a few relevant paragraphs on the point from this key authority which clarify the correct legal position: [21] I have no difficulty in regarding the letter of 26 September 2001 as an acknowledgment of the appellants' claim within the meaning of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. In Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977] 1 WLR 565, 575E-F Kerr J said that the debtor can only be held to have acknowledged the claim if he has in effect admitted his legal liability to pay that which the plaintiff seeks to recover. But his acknowledgment need not identify the amount of the debt. [44]A debtor's written acknowledgment of his debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim starts time running afresh under the Limitation Act 1980 (the 1980 Act). Such is the effect of sections 29 (5) and 30. [79]The first issue is whether either or both of the Advice Centre's letters of 26th September and 4th October 2001, if admissible in evidence, constituted an acknowledgement of the appellant bank's claim for the purposes of sections 29(5) and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980. On this issue, I agree with Lord Brown's reasoning and conclusions in paragraphs 53-60. The letters acknowledged the existence of "the outstanding balance, owed to you" or "the outstanding amount". The appellant bank is entitled to prove the unstated quantum of that admitted balance or amount by any admissible means, including oral evidence, in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision in Dungate v. Dungate [1965] 1 WLR 1477. By the first letter, written in response to the appellant bank's insistence on proposals for repayment, Mr Rashid was simply requesting time to "start to repay" the outstanding balance. By the second letter, written in response to the bank's reiteration of its insistence and its indication that it would consider writing off a substantial sum if Mr Rashid raised a lump sum payment "in full and final settlement", Mr Rashid was simply offering "approximately £500 towards the outstanding amount as a final settlement". In each case, he was clearly acknowledging the outstanding debt without question. Dory
  6. I'm just going to get something to eat. I'll come back on here in about 45 mins if that's alright. Dory
  7. No worries, What did you say in your letter to Erudio/Dryden's in 2016? Sorry I forgot to ask, what does the recent letter from Dryden's say? Dory
  8. On the Acknowledgement of service form, tick the box that says "I intend to defend all of this claim". When the court serves a Claim form (the N1) the Defendant has 33 days from the date of service to file his Defence, so it is absolutely important that you complete the Acknowledgement of service (AOS for short) because if you don't the Claimant can and will obtain judgment in default against you! Do you still have your own records for this loan? This will help to establish the last date you made any payment and the last date you acknowledged the loan/debt. Dorytime
  9. Oh, so you deferred the loan in 2013 when you moved house, is that correct? What date in 2013 did you defer, this is crucial to the point whether its statute barred or not! Dorytime
  10. Alright Cruet, Let's just keep things on topic please, sometimes it is best to keep your opinion....about anyone and anything to yourself. I think you would prove your humanity if you gave dx an apology, we are all strangers here, we don't know each other or whether any of us suffer from any illness or not, but the one thing we do know is that we are all here looking for help, support and advice or to give the same to our fellow people. Dorytime
  11. You must complete the acknowledgement of service form without delay, make a copy of it for yourself and then send one completed copy to the court by Special Delivery or Recorded Delivery so that you have proof of filing it in time, this must be done within 14 days of service of the N1 Claim form. The date of service will be on the Claim form or any letter from the court that you received today. Dorytime
  12. Hi, Ok, it looks like your loan is not statute barred then, because of your deferment in 2014. You probably didn't receive a notice of assignment for the loan as you moved house. Is there any information that you can think of that may present you with a Defence against the claim? Can you please post up the details of the claim, word for word please. Thanks. Dorytime
  13. your last deferment was in 2014, this is an acknowledgement of the debt for the purpose of the 6 year limitation period and extends the limitation period within the meaning of s.30 of the 1980 Act and therefore, unfortunately, this debt is not statute barred. In Bradford and Bingley plc v Rashid (FC) [2006] UKHL 37, the House considered the limitation period under the 1980 Act and ss.29 & 30 and held that a debtor’s acknowledgment of the debt claimed means that the debt is not statute barred. Here are a few relevant paragraphs on the point from this key authority: [21] I have no difficulty in regarding the letter of 26 September 2001 as an acknowledgment of the appellants' claim within the meaning of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. In Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977] 1 WLR 565, 575E-F Kerr J said that the debtor can only be held to have acknowledged the claim if he has in effect admitted his legal liability to pay that which the plaintiff seeks to recover. But his acknowledgment need not identify the amount of the debt. [44]A debtor's written acknowledgment of his debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim starts time running afresh under the Limitation Act 1980 (the 1980 Act). Such is the effect of sections 29 (5) and 30. [79]The first issue is whether either or both of the Advice Centre's letters of 26th September and 4th October 2001, if admissible in evidence, constituted an acknowledgement of the appellant bank's claim for the purposes of sections 29(5) and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980. On this issue, I agree with Lord Brown's reasoning and conclusions in paragraphs 53-60. The letters acknowledged the existence of "the outstanding balance, owed to you" or "the outstanding amount". The appellant bank is entitled to prove the unstated quantum of that admitted balance or amount by any admissible means, including oral evidence, in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision in Dungate v. Dungate [1965] 1 WLR 1477. By the first letter, written in response to the appellant bank's insistence on proposals for repayment, Mr Rashid was simply requesting time to "start to repay" the outstanding balance. By the second letter, written in response to the bank's reiteration of its insistence and its indication that it would consider writing off a substantial sum if Mr Rashid raised a lump sum payment "in full and final settlement", Mr Rashid was simply offering "approximately £500 towards the outstanding amount as a final settlement". In each case, he was clearly acknowledging the outstanding debt without question. The above authority on this point clarifies the issue on the meaning of statute barred raised here by Billywilder and Cruet, and for any consumer for that matter. Dorytime
  14. In Bradford and Bingley plc v Rashid (FC) [2006] UKHL 37, the House considered the limitation period under the 1980 Act and ss.29 & 30 and held that a debtor’s acknowledgment of the debt claimed means that the debt is not statute barred. Here are a few relevant paragraphs on the point from this key authority: [21] I have no difficulty in regarding the letter of 26 September 2001 as an acknowledgment of the appellants' claim within the meaning of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. In Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977] 1 WLR 565, 575E-F Kerr J said that the debtor can only be held to have acknowledged the claim if he has in effect admitted his legal liability to pay that which the plaintiff seeks to recover. But his acknowledgment need not identify the amount of the debt. [44]A debtor's written acknowledgment of his debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim starts time running afresh under the Limitation Act 1980 (the 1980 Act). Such is the effect of sections 29 (5) and 30. [79]The first issue is whether either or both of the Advice Centre's letters of 26th September and 4th October 2001, if admissible in evidence, constituted an acknowledgement of the appellant bank's claim for the purposes of sections 29(5) and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980. On this issue, I agree with Lord Brown's reasoning and conclusions in paragraphs 53-60. The letters acknowledged the existence of "the outstanding balance, owed to you" or "the outstanding amount". The appellant bank is entitled to prove the unstated quantum of that admitted balance or amount by any admissible means, including oral evidence, in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision in Dungate v. Dungate [1965] 1 WLR 1477. By the first letter, written in response to the appellant bank's insistence on proposals for repayment, Mr Rashid was simply requesting time to "start to repay" the outstanding balance. By the second letter, written in response to the bank's reiteration of its insistence and its indication that it would consider writing off a substantial sum if Mr Rashid raised a lump sum payment "in full and final settlement", Mr Rashid was simply offering "approximately £500 towards the outstanding amount as a final settlement". In each case, he was clearly acknowledging the outstanding debt without question. The above authority on this point clarifies the issue on the meaning of statute barred raised here by Billywilder and Cruet, and for any consumer for that matter. Dorytime
×
×
  • Create New...