Statute barred debt

[Gazzer83]

When does the 6 years for a statute barred debt start, is it when you default or from the date of the last letter i sent them. Have looked on site but can not find answer.

 

Thank you

[HF whO?]

Run your cursor over the link that has come up where you have written up Statute Barred;) It gives you the answer there:D

[maroondevo52]

Hi,

 

This is what the OFT say.............................

 

A debt is considered Statute Barred if a creditor has not contacted a debtor for a period of 6 years and no action has been taken on the account.

 

Although the debt is still legally acknowledged as being owed, the creditor is not able to take any legal action against the debtor in order to recover the debt. It is considered unfair if a creditor or debt collector misleads the debtor into believing the debt is still legally recoverable. It is also considered an unfair practice if the creditor or debt collector press for payment after the debtor has stated they will not be paying the money owed. This could amount to harassment contrary to Section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[Gazzer83]

Thank you both for your quick response.

[HF whO?]

Thank you both for your quick response.

 

 

You can tell who the more experienced person is:D

 

I too find that some of the wording can become confusing as it is not everyday language that I would usually use or even hear for that matter.

 

So, looking at this it appears that IF a debt is acknowledged even verbally on the telephone then this can then reset the clock?

[maroondevo52]

So, looking at this it appears that IF a debt is acknowledged even verbally on the telephone then this can then reset the clock?

 

I don't think a phone call counts, a debt will be "Statute Barred" if there has been no acknowledgement of the debt by you making a payment or in writing within the relevant limitation period.

 

I could be wrong

[Guest]

I don't think a phone call counts, a debt will be "Statute Barred" if there has been no acknowledgement of the debt by you making a payment or in writing within the relevant limitation period.

 

I could be wrong

 

pt2537 has also suggested that acknowledgement must at least be in writing to overturn limitation.

what is meant by 'contact' in your earlier post? thanks.

[maroondevo52]

what is meant by 'contact' in your earlier post? thanks.

 

Contact I take it will mean by making a payment or writing a letter.

[royalscot]

If you make a payment within a six year period you start the clock running again , once the six years are up , making a payment does not start the clock again - the debt is statute barred for all time and therefore cannot be Legally challenged .

 

In law , a limitation period is not extended by contact , it is only extended by payment or by written and signed acknowledgement of the debt . Spoken acknowledgement is not sufficient .

 

Please note that in Scottish law it is Statute Barred after five years

 

regards rs

[Guest]

Contact I take it will mean by making a payment or writing a letter.

 

so, would writing a letter eg 'in dispute' etc even if headed with 'no acknowledgements/admissions' overturn limitation? thanks.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Ford
crossed with royalscot

[royalscot]

I think if you were to send them " an account in despute letter " and you signed it then yes imo it would overturn the limitation and would start the clock ticking again , because you are infact acknowledging the debt by desputing it .

 

rs

[Guest]

I think if you were to send them " an account in despute letter " and you signed it then yes imo it would overturn the limitation and would start the clock ticking again , because you are infact acknowledging the debt by desputing it .

 

rs

 

if it is disputed, then surely there's no 'acknowledgement'.

here's a recent relevant thread on this, what do you think?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/254403-statute-barred-debts-cause.html#post2861378

Edited May 9, 2010 by Ford

[royalscot]

Interesting , will have alook at tomorrow and let you know my thoughts .

 

I can see your point though

 

rs

[royalscot]

If you acknowledged the debt in a defence for example this would "reset" the clock.

 

Yes i was thinking more along this line , however if your stating that the debt doesn`t exist by disputing it then perhaps there is no acknowledge ment after all , but im not 100% on this .

 

rs

[dx100uk]

if you used the words i do not ack no debt to your Co.

and then dispute it, it does NOT reset the clock.

 

also be aware that 'payment under duress' will not reset it either

i'e a dca conned you into paying by threats etc.

or the phantom mystery £1 payments by a dca.

 

dx

[HF whO?]

So if a debt is approaching statute barred then what is the best course of action if a DCA decides to chase it then?

 

The way I understand it is that the debt could almost be statute barred but due to a DCA getting in touch with you and you going through the usual CCA/SAR approach you've just shot yourself in the foot and given the DCA another 6 years to harrass you for a debt that you'll probably never see a genuine CCA for???

[dx100uk]

no

sending SAR or CCA does NOT reset the clock.

 

if its almost SB'ed then ignore them.

 

dx

[Guest]

if you used the words i do not ack no debt to your Co.

and then dispute it, it does NOT reset the clock.

 

 

dx

 

thanks!

[Newborn]

One question that's always bugged me is, if the original creditor incorrectly assigns the debt to a DCA to whom you acknowledge the debt in some way how does that stand in law? Especially if the OC never gets told you acknowledged the debt or received any part of the payment.

 

In that case surely the acknowledgement is not made the the OC so never happened in law? Otherwise just telling your mate down the pub that you owed money would reset the clock as they would have the same legal standing as that unlawfully appointed DCA?

 

I ask this as, with no proper assignment there is presumably no proper contract between OC and DCA, so the DCA should not have access to the details etc in the first place.