Questions from : Have you received threatening demands for debts older than 6 years?

[Richard Spud]

Quotes from the Daily Hansard Parliamentary Debate regarding Debt Collection and the Consumer Credit Act on 22 April 2009 beginning at column 338.

 

At column 341 Mr Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab) states:

 

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” [my emphasis added]

 

At column 342 The Minister for Trade, Development and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Gareth Thomas) states:

 

“The OFT would expect the debt collection agency concerned to have checked the accuracy of the client data details that it received from the creditor or agency, and, where possible, to have obtained a copy of the original consumer credit agreement.” [my emphasis added]

 

See the original Hansard publication on the link below:

 

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Apr 2009 (pt 0019)

 

HTH

 

Regards – Richard.

[make them aktiv runners]

Have you received threats of legal action in respect of debts older than 6 years?

 

Although if you are in debt, you will continue to owe the money until it is paid off, after 6 years the debt is probably statute barred which means that the creditor will have lost his right to sue for the money.

 

Despite this, debt collectors frequently rely on people's ignorance of the law or their fear by making threats of legal action to recover debts even though these threats are unenforceable.

 

The making of a threat is dishonest.

 

Now, the new CPUT Regulations 2008 (Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations) may make such unprofessional behaviour unlawful.

 

If you have received such threats, you should not respond to the debt collector but you should write a letter of complaint to the OFT who are obliged to investigate your complaint and to take enforcement action of some kind if they agree with you.

 

See the new explanatory notes on the 2008 CPUT regs at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/146460-consumer-protection-unfair-trading.html

 

Please do let us know if you are taking any action under CPUT as we would like to keep ourselves updated on how useful it is.

 

Anyone been successful with this? I have so far identified breaches under Regulations 5, 6 and 7, together with 3 of the banned practices in schedule 1.

[HFwho?]

Hi all,

 

I think this maybe the place to find someone to kindly answer a few a questions in my thread regarding statute? Please help.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/193541-hfo-services-hassle-4.html

 

All the information is at the link above, i've had some great advice so far and learned so much I did not know until coming to this site. Just need to clear up if this debt of mine would be classed as statute barred even though I have made payments AFTER the statute barred period. Last payment to the OC 15/3/00, Default date (HFO have said this date) 15/12/00. DD set up 27/11/06, first paid DD 15/12/06

Basically would this be a statute barred if I had no contact between these dates?

Edited May 6, 2009 by HFwho?

[masterfullone]

hi guys,just joined, i used to have a mortgage with the halifax,joint with g/f at the time,we split up and i left her with the flat in 1994 she gave the flat back to them witch they sold and she had to pay a 1,300 short fall which she did, i have never heard from the halifax since i left in 1994,i now have merrils ede solicitors sending me letters asking for £13013.31 re- -shortfall, i have not talked or written back, they now are sending letters saying they will take me to court and make me bankrupt and so on,now had two phone calls,one today saying if they dont hear back today then thats what they will do,what do i do help,can they make me pay after all this time?hoping u good people can stop me from shaking.thanks.

[BelstarBomb]

Hi Masterfullone,

 

Firstly don't worry and stop shaking! You have come to the right place for help.

 

I am sure that it is 12 years on mortgages for it to be statute barred and either way that you look at it, you are well within the timescales. Do a quick search on this website or I'm hoping that one of the site team will chip in too.

 

In doing the search on the site, I'm hoping that you will find a template letter to send to their solicitors that is similar to the 6 years statued barred letters but obviously changed for mortgages.

 

Whatever you do, don't call them - companies like this prey on peoples ignorance of the law.

 

When you do write back to them, also quote the recent ruling from the OFT re Mackenzie Hall which specifically mentions statute barred agreements.

 

Hope this helps for now but don't forget, it is not as bad as it seems!

 

Good luck,

 

BB

[masterfullone]

hi belstar bomb,many thanks for the quick reply,getting calmer now i know that there is light at the end,they are ****,thanks again,keep the help coming guys.

[JonCris]

Loans secured by deed (mortgages) must be enforced within 12 years from the last payment/default otherwise they are time barred under the Limitations Act & can no longer be enforced. - Tell them this & remind them it is a breach of the OFT guidelines to attempt to enforce the unenforceble - Furthermore for a solicitor to do so, as they should know better, it could be argued that they are guilty of a criminal act as per the 2006 Fraud Act

[masterfullone]

thank you JonCris, i am still searching for a statute barred letter/template for mortgages inc 12years time period,but can only find one re-6 year priod,belstar bomb thought there might be one on here, if any one can help/point me in the right direction that would be great.

[JonCris]

Quote this http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/55.htm

 

& amend the 6 year template accordingly

[masterfullone]

Thanks JonCris, i have amended the 6 year template,now at the bottom it says Yours faithfully now should i type my full name ,i know not to sign it,or should i leave it blank,,and await there reply,many thanks guys i will sleep easy tonight.

[Paullad]

Hi there,

 

I have an outstanding amount with T-mobile for £248.00, they wrote to me around last July time saying they'd sent the debt to Fredricksons but then when i went to pay it Fredricksons said they had returned the debt to T-mobile. when my circumstances changed i automatically wrote to T-mobile who informed me it had again been passed back to Fredricksons, which i was informed that it hadn't...

 

Obviously somewhere communication between these have gone to poop but the debt is from about 2003, does this mean that i could actually get this debt wiped off or would i have to write to them again and see what is actually going on?

 

thank you for any help!

[k1mmie]

Is the 6 years from the last transaction on the account?

[JackFrost1989]

Can somebody just advise me on one point.

 

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

 

 

When its says OFT accepts the debt exists , what does this actually mean to somebody with a statue debt? if it cannot be legally recovered, then how does it still exist ?? Just thought that bit was a bit odd and wanted to query it.

 

Thanks

[The GodMother]

Basically the debt still exists because they say u had the money and because no attempt has been made to pay the money back. The law states that they cant legally be recovered meaning nothing can be done threw the courts.

 

The company can ask u to pay the money back but u are under no obligation to do so.

[Richard Spud]

I would just add that the 6 or 12 year periods can begin running again upon the admission of a debt by the debtor i.e. by offering to pay an instalment or, indeed, declining to pay an instalment due to not having the wherewithal. It is prudent to be very careful not to unwittingly admit a debt, particularly towards the end of the initial 6/12 year period as some creditors attempt this or even attribute phantom payments to accounts in order to claim a payment has been made and thus running the clock again.

 

HTH – Richard

[The GodMother]

not really richard if you admitt the debt in writing or you make payment after the initial 6 years then they are classed as token payments towards the debt. If it is done before the 6 years is up then the clock starts ticking again.

 

Just so others dont get confused there are different rules on Statue barred for different type of items.

 

unsecured money, eg Credit cards, loans, catalogues etc

 

the statue of limitations states 6 years of non payment non admittance and non contact.

 

Morgages

there are 2 parts of Statue barred for morgages if they have not contacted you within 6 years of the house being repossessed then after 6 years they can not claim intrest on the debt, but they can claim the first 6 years just not any more. After 12 years of no contact they cannot claim anything from you.

[JonCris]

Fraid GM is correct Richard a payment AFTER 6 years is only a token payment & does not make the debt enforceable. In fact you could if so inclined demand reimbursement of such monies.

 

However you are correct when you refer to phantom payments appearing on an account within the 6 years causing the clock to start ticking all over again. Also whilst it shouldn't be if they understood the law it's important NOT to admit a debt in court. If asked direct the question away by pointing out, repeatedly if necessary, that you maintain that any such debt would & is time barred

[make them aktiv runners]

Richard is correct, you are both reading his post as covering all situations. He has only referred to contact and the clock within the first 6 years for CCA or 12 years for mortgage.

 

To expand upon the declining payment, an example is writing within the Limitation period acknowledging the debt but stating you cannot afford to pay.

[moneymouth77]

make them activ runners is absolutely correct, any acknowledgement of the debt is unwise, be it over the phone or through writing. If you have any debts coming up for 6 years, avoid discussing them at all costs! Worked for my student overdraft

[Richard Spud]

 

not really richard ... If it is done before the 6 years is up then the clock starts ticking again.

 

 

"Not really"? I concur with your assertion that the clock begins again upon admission during either the 6 or 12 year limitation period - as I stated previously.

 

 

Fraid GM is correct Richard a payment AFTER 6 years is only a token payment & does not make the debt enforceable.

 

 

A concur JonCris; I did not suggest anything otherwise!

 

 

Richard is correct, you are both reading his post as covering all situations. He has only referred to contact and the clock within the first 6 years for CCA or 12 years for mortgage.

 

 

Thank you for your comment MTAR.

 

In conclusion; I apologise if my clumsy interjection caused any misunderstanding. Off course my opinion should not be relied upon. Nevertheless, simply put it is my understanding that under English law the basic premiss is that a simple contract is actionable up to a period of 6 years from the date of default or one of the parties cease performance or the admission of said default or cessation and a contact under seal is actionable up to 12 years.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Richard.

[diddydicky]

i hope i am wrong but i think my point might be worth noting on this thread

 

although there are clearly more than 12 years since you last had any contact with the mortgagor, i presume the mortgage was in joint names

 

now if your EX has had dealings with the bank within the last 12 years

she may have "dropped you in it"

 

i say this because you are both jointly and severally liable for the debt and i have this feeling that if ONE OF YOU admits or makes payments to the debt then it probably will be a joint and several liability

 

perhaps might be worth getting legal advice on this point unless someone has a definative answer from a legal background

[lawtcrav]

In Ferguson -v- British Gas [2009]. Mrs Ferguson was chased by BG for a non existent debt. The Court of Appeal awarded her £10,000 plus costs for harrasment by BG, by virtue of the Protection from Harrasment Act 1997.

 

The case is interesting because it is about erroneous debt collection practices and referrals to credit reference agencies.

 

You can download the case from the British & Irish Legal Institute's (BAILI) website. A link to the case is below.

Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009)

 

There is also another case which name I do not know whereby the harasser was ordered to pay the "debtor" over £100,000 because he had been forced into a mortgage at exhorbitant rates because of referrals to credit reference agencies. As soon as I have the case I shall post its location here.

[BelstarBomb]

Hi Lawtcrav,

 

What you have posted is very interesting not only on statute barred accounts but also there may be some use when arguing against non existant CCA's.

 

I would be interested to see the case history from the mortgage case when you have it.

 

Is digging up info like this a hobby, vocation or living for you?

 

BB

[moneymouth77]

Just read the above notes... very interesting. And an example of how to deal with aggressive creditors! I'd recommend a read to anyone.

[The GodMother]

it seems to be a popular case on here the British gas one. I have seen it in at lease 3/4 different places.