1st Credit - Citi Card debt - 6 questions!

[1mper1um]

In England and Wales a debt become statute barred after 6 years 5 in Scotland, IF there have been no payments from any source and no unequivocal written acknowledgment of liability made in the 6 year period.

In which case I will be in the clear in 2 weeks unless they magically provide the original signed agreement, yes?

 

A recon on a post April 2006 contract can be used in court and together with other evidence such as statements of payments to and usage of a credit facility may lead a judge on the balance of probabilities to determine that a liability subsists and the debt must be repaid.

But this is a pre 2006 debt. Post 2006 doesn't apply. So they can't use a recon in court along with other evidence. They need the signed original and unless they do so in the next two weeks - at which point the 6 years are up - I'm in the clear, the default comes off my credit report, and the debt is statute barred, right?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

In which case I will be in the clear in 2 weeks unless they magically provide the original signed agreement, yes?

 

 

But this is a pre 2006 debt. Post 2006 doesn't apply. So they can't use a recon in court along with other evidence. They need the signed original and unless they do so in the next two weeks - at which point the 6 years are up - I'm in the clear, the default comes off my credit report, and the debt is statute barred, right?

 

 

Yes but the debt still exists in England it is not expunged as in Scotland.

[1mper1um]

I can live with that

[1mper1um]

I just noticed something - though the default date was late August 2008 as per my Equifax credit report, the "purchase date" as noted on the last letter 1st Credit sent was for a month later. Am I right in saying that it's from the default date the 6 years starts and not the purchase date?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I just noticed something - though the default date was late August 2008 as per my Equifax credit report, the "purchase date" as noted on the last letter 1st Credit sent was for a month later. Am I right in saying that it's from the default date the 6 years starts and not the purchase date?

The date the debt was purchased has no relevance.

 

 

The six year period will have started from: The date when a contractual payment was due and not made after which no further payment or written acknowledgment was ever made: (applies to unsecured loans and credit cards.)

[1mper1um]

The date the debt was purchased has no relevance.[]/quote

Good good.

 

 

The six year period will have started from: The date when a contractual payment was due and not made after which no further payment or written acknowledgment was ever made: (applies to unsecured loans and credit cards.)

Not sure when that was so can only go off what Equifax has, Strangely enough, I remember it still being with Citi when I started a new job 29/08/08 and didn't default until a week or so later yet the default was prior to this. At a time when Citi said it wouldn't default until it got passed on. Hmmm.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The date the debt was purchased has no relevance.[]/quote

Good good.

 

 

 

Not sure when that was so can only go off what Equifax has, Strangely enough, I remember it still being with Citi when I started a new job 29/08/08 and didn't default until a week or so later yet the default was prior to this. At a time when Citi said it wouldn't default until it got passed on. Hmmm.

 

 

 

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[1mper1um]

Mega mega thanks for all your help!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Mega mega thanks for all your help!

Happy to help, CAG is here if you need anything more!

[1mper1um]

My time is up in the next couple of days and have not spoken to 1st Credit for years.

 

 

Maybe I am overthinking but

 

 

2 weeks ago they sent a "the debt remains unpaid we are considering county court action" letter and a week ago they sent another.

 

 

I would normally continue to ignore - they have my correspondence asking for a true, signed copy of any alleged agreement

and they have thus far failed

- but as they have just a few hours left,

and as they have started the round of letters again as though I am a new account

I am wondering whether it would be best to remind them that they would need a true, signed copy to take such action.

 

On one hand, they may just be going round in circles by sending automated letters

and so I don't need to do anything as they know their hands are tied

but on the other hand they may just chance their arm in court if they think I will not contest it

(and so a reminder may be required).

 

 

What do you recommend?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This is common with this company, maybe they believe that this approach will " encourage" contact and payment??

 

 

I would return a copy of the last letter with a "terse" note regarding making threats of court action when they know all to well it cannot happen.

[Duffers Mum]

I had similar where they wrote and told me my account had been sold to them, 5 years after it actually had...they seemed to have forgotten they had issued a statutory demand in 2008 which I got set aside...I ignored them,then complained officially saying why had they chased previously of they didn't own account etc,they replied it was because I had moved and not told them.

 

I got threats, then it went to Connaught collections,who advised they had sent to their solicitors...I ignored them following advice from members on here, but it was very difficult to do so...my account because statute barred at the beginning of this month and last week I received another letter from Connaught, the exact same letter as before re solicitors..I send the statute barred letter and they are reverting to the original creditor.

 

It's hard to ignore them, but I'm glad I did..

[1mper1um]

I had similar where they wrote and told me my account had been sold to them, 5 years after it actually had...they seemed to have forgotten they had issued a statutory demand in 2008 which I got set aside...I ignored them,then complained officially saying why had they chased previously of they didn't own account etc,they replied it was because I had moved and not told them.

 

I got threats, then it went to Connaught collections,who advised they had sent to their solicitors...I ignored them following advice from members on here, but it was very difficult to do so...my account because statute barred at the beginning of this month and last week I received another letter from Connaught, the exact same letter as before re solicitors..I send the statute barred letter and they are reverting to the original creditor.

 

It's hard to ignore them, but I'm glad I did..[/QUOTe]

 

Good to know I am not alone. Interesting to hear you get a letter confirming statute barring. Who sends you that?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Good to know I am not alone. Interesting to hear you get a letter confirming statute barring. Who sends you that?

The company that currently owns the debt will (sometimes!) acknowledge an SB letter.

 

 

The Rule is; That the debtor must inform the " creditor" that the debt is statute barred and that they will not be paying.

If the "creditor" continues to press for payment ( of an SB debt) after being informed of the status of the debt it May amount to harassment.

[Duffers Mum]

I haven't received anything confirming that it is statute barred from 1st credit, Connaught or Citi but I know it is...if they continue to harass me that's up to them as I will just continue to ignore them safe in the knowledge that they can't do anything about it!

[1mper1um]

Can DCAs update the date defaults were registered on the credit report agencies?

 

 

As I mentioned previously, the date registered on my report is a few weeks earlier than 1st Credit's purchase date

and it's also earlier than what had been agreed with Citi,

 

 

who said they would not place any defaults whilst they were dealing with it.

 

 

. If DCAs cannot amend the default date then the 6 years is up.

[dx100uk]

they can update the debt

but never change or register new defaults

 

 

only the OC can register defaults.

 

 

dx

[1mper1um]

Thanks. Good to know they can't alter the date of registration. I will await the post to see if they sent anything out today confirming last minute legal action.

 

On the off chance they have decided to go to court, will they call it off once I have reiterated their need for a signed true copy of the agreement or will I still have to defend myself in court? If the latter, will the court be duty bound to dismiss them for failing to provide the requisite document or can they side with them regardless?

[dx100uk]

go read in the financial legal forum

 

 

without a CCA they'll be stuffed!!

 

 

dx

[Duffers Mum]

I really wouldn't worry, your situation is almost identical to mine and my thread has me saying very similar things. I think if they were going to instigate legal action they would have done so by now. The advice from those in the know on this forum really is invaluable and sound....I am very grateful for their help and that I took their advice and stood firm and ignored all the threats...

[1mper1um]

Well guys, it looks like the letter I sent with just 2 weeks to go to SB did the trick as the spate of activity by 1st Credit stopped instantly. It's coming up for 2 months since SB and I've not heard a peep (but that includes not getting a letter confirming SB as I requested) and I just wanted to say a big thank you to all of you. None of this would have been possible without your advice and support and putting up with my many (and oft-repeated) questions. Thank you so much.

 

Any idea how long it will be before the default disappears from my credit file? It is supposed to be automatic isn't it or do I need to contact the credit reference agencies?

[dx100uk]

6yrs from its birthday.

 

 

its auto.

 

 

FWIW: just take a look in the financial legal section

 

 

lots of old CITI debts being taken to court.

 

 

dx

[Duffers Mum]

Have the DCA's started getting the correct paper work then DX? Or are they just chancing their luck?

[dx100uk]

go have a read

dx

[Duffers Mum]

Have a read of what?