Jump to content


1st Credit & Statute Barred debts


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5622 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I recently received a county court claim issued by 1st Credit for what is very clearly a statute barred debt (I do have a thread for it), and have been looking at some of the other threads regarding this DCA, I had never heard of them before receiving the court papers. Looking at Companies House for 1st Credit, it became clear that this debt was already statute barred before 1st Credit became registered as a company!

 

There appears to be a pattern of issuing claim forms for statute barred debts, the solicitor's is not showing as being registered, they obviously are in house as they share the same address, I would assume that legally they must have at least one registered solicitor?

 

Where am I going with this? Well, I am writing a letter of complaint to the Office of Fair Trading and would like to request that anyone who has been treated in the same disgraceful way by this company consider doing the same, they may take action if we complain loud enough.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Dibs x

Don't know if i'm coming or going!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have received replies from Trading Standards who are looking into my complaint, and the OFT who have sent the following reply:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act)

Complaint against: 1ST Credit Finance Ltd

Licence No: 474343

I am very sorry to hear about the difficulties you have been experiencing however, the OFT has no authority to become involved in disputes between consumers and traders and so we cannot offer you any direct help with the complaint or advise you directly in this matter. Our role is to protect the collective interests of consumers.

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) established a licensing system to protect the interests of consumers in the credit area. If a business wishes to undertake the collection of debts that arise from consumer credit agreements then the Act states that they are required to hold a consumer credit licence; this is issued by the OFT.

The above trader holds a consumer credit licence.

Under the Act, the OFT has a duty to consider the fitness of all traders who hold consumer credit licences.

 

In considering fitness we take into account whether a business has engaged in improper business practices. Where we receive complaints about the business practices of licensees, we investigate them and where appropriate we take enforcement action; that action depends on the evidence and circumstances. Action the OFT can take includes revoking, refusing or suspending a licence; or placing conduct requirements on the licence of the company or business in question (failure to comply with a conduct requirement can result in a financial penalty being levied).

 

The OFT has issued guidance to consumer credit licence holders engaged in the debt collection industry. The guidance is intended to ensure that debt collectors treat debtors fairly. Non-compliance with this guidance will call into question the fitness of licence holders and applicants. You can view our guidance at: http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/debt-collection

 

The Limitation Act 1980 (the 1980 Act) sets out certain periods (referred to here as the “limitation period”) after which court claims cannot be brought. Different periods apply to different types of claims.

 

A claim for a debt is a claim based on breach of contract. The basic rule, under section 5 of the 1980 Act, is that a court claim for breach of contract cannot be brought more than 6 years after the breach occurred. In the case of a debt, the breach is the failure to pay the debt when required. The 6 year limitation period runs from the time payment should have been made and a court claim cannot usually be brought after that.

 

It is also possible for the limitation period, in effect to be extended. Under section 29 of the 1980 Act this can happen when the debtor acknowledges his debt or makes a part payment of it. The acknowledgement or payment must be to the person to whom the debt is owed or someone acting on his behalf. When the debtor does either of these things the 6 year limitation period may start to run afresh. This can only be the case where the acknowledgement or part payment is made within the original 6 year limitation period (and not later). The acknowledgement would need to be in writing and signed by the person making it (or someone on his behalf). It would need to amount to an admission that the debt is owed and has not been paid.

 

If a creditor seeks payment of a debt outside the limitation period the debt does still exist legally. The creditor can still ask the debtor to pay. What the expiry of the limitation period means is that the creditor cannot then enforce the debt through court action

 

The OFT’s Debt Collection Guidance, published in July 2003, gives the OFT’s position regarding statute barred debt in England and Wales :

It is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period,If a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt, It is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, e.g. falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal provisions, and Continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I have noted the details of your complaint, and we will consider this alongside any other complaints we have received with a view to any licensing action we may decide to take. If we do take any licensing action against this trader, it is likely that we would need to disclose your identity to this trader along with details of your complaint. I should therefore be grateful if you could sign the enclosed consent form and return it to me. Unfortunately, we cannot disclose any details about any action we may take, due to restrictions on the OFT relating to disclosure of information (Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002).

 

 

I have completed the Disclosure and will send copies of the documents to support my complaint.

Edited by Dibsthefrenchie

Don't know if i'm coming or going!

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO...it seems a bit of a cop out....especially as it says this....this is what the OFT said themselves !!!

 

continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to

harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of

Justice Act 1970.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TS are very interested and requested some copy documents, so fingers crossed with that one.

I phoned the court and they have a nine day back log, probably due to 1st Credit & CapQuest, so will chase that up again next week, but i'm not too concerned as I have plenty of time and also the Notice of Discontinuance from 1st Credit.

Thanks again.

Dibs.

Don't know if i'm coming or going!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hiya, I've also recently received a letter from 1st Credit demanding I pay a statute barred debt. I wrote back to them promptly using a template from the National Debtline National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 25 Liability For Debts And The Limitation Act

 

They then wrote back to me again saying they now intend to take legal proceedings! In their letter they state successful court proceedings will result in Legal costs, a CCJ, an attachment of earnings, seizure of my assets, and a charging order against my home (I'm a homeowner).

 

Now I am absolutely certain the debt is statute barred - I haven't paid/acknowledged for 10 years now. I have drafted a letter as a response to them but before sending I wanted to know whether it is advisable and to ask for other people's opinions on changes or a better approach. Any input will be much appreciated.

 

I write to respond to your letter dated 3 November 2008 and strongly advise you to refer to my letter dated 31 October 2008.

You wrote to me about a sum of money that you claim is owed by myself. My response made it explicitly clear to you that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

As I stated in my letter, unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed. I know and I am sure you know that the last payment of this debt was made well over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time.

Just to make sure you are completely clear on this, I restate that unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

As a company that operates as a ‘debt’ collector you should well know that the OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Your letter dated 3 November purposely contradicts this guidance by trying to mislead by threatening me with court action you have no right to take. Your actions are not only misleading but could also amount to harassment and I have taken the appropriate action by reporting you to the relevant bodies including the OFT.

You have seven days to write to me and confirm that you will no longer be pursuing me about this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...