Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Misleading information from PayPlan on statute barred debts?


gyos
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4310 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

And I quote:

 

The Limitation Act 1980 | Debt Advice | Payplan

 

Remember, creditors are still able to pursue an unsecured debt if:

 

  • They have previously obtained a judgement against you (a CCJ);
  • You have made a payment to the account within the last 6 years (this includes anyone else named on the credit agreement)
  • You have established any contact with the creditor (this can be a phone call or letter to request a balance or change your details), except to deny that the debt exists.

What? :eek:

 

Every other piece of information I have ever seen says that acknowledgement must be in writing?

 

In fact, the Act states that

 

"an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it."

 

I thought PayPlan were meant to a reasonably reliable source of information? At least on something as basic as this. :confused:

 

The worst thing is that someone innocently searching for information may come across that and believe it's true!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always been told that ANY communication or correspondence between yourself and the creditor would be classed as contact, and would then affect the chances of the debt becoming statute barred, therefore I would say that the statement from Payplan is correct.

If someone is calling, discussing or chasing you for a debt, you are still liable. It is only if you have had NO correspondence or communication from them aknowledging the debt that this would be statute barred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statute Barred

 

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

 

I have just located this from the folowing link:

Your Rights against Creditors from Debt Questions

Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesnt seem correct at all, I was under the impression that the statute barred clock only began running again if you make a payment to the creditor.

 

The Payplan info. would appear to say that it aslo applies if you (the debtor) contacts the creditor but other posts say it is the other way round or perhaps either way, this doesnt seem correct, otherwise a ceditor could claim he has contacted the debtor, how could this ever be proved ?. It would seem a debtor can contact a creditor (and still be SB) just by disputed the debt, but how can a debtor dispute a debt in a letter sent to him !?

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing at all in the Limitation Act 1980 that allows the period to be restarted by the creditor contacting the debtor.

 

Limitation Act 1980

 

The debtor must either acknowledge the debt in writing or make a payment.

 

As specified in Section 29 here:

 

Extension or Exclusion of Ordinary Time Limits

 

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, where any right of action has accrued to recover—

 

(a) any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim; or

 

(b) any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate;

 

and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or payment.

Notice that it is the person liable that must make the acknowledgement, NOT anyone else.

 

So a creditor writing to you or contacting you DOES NOT COUNT.

 

As for the PayPlan claim that a phone call may count as acknowledgement, that is disproved completely as the act specifically requires in section 30 that:

 

To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it.
So no a phone call cannot possibly count. Edited by gyos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gyos..Thanks for that, that confirms that the situation is the same as I assumed.

I've been looking at Limitation Act quite closely myself, as I am trying to prove that the 6 year limit doesn't apply to a refund of ground rent that I have been overcharged, specifically Section 32.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Payplan has now confirmed that the info was incorrect and have amended their website. :D

 

From the incorrect;

 

"You have established any contact with the creditor (this can be a phone call or letter to request a balance or change your details), except to deny that the debt exists."

 

to

 

"You have not written to the creditor acknowledging or admitting that you owe the debt during the previous six years."

 

So any pour soul reading that webpage is no longer going to be mislead. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Payplan has now confirmed that the info was incorrect and have amended their website. :D

 

From the incorrect;

 

"You have established any contact with the creditor (this can be a phone call or letter to request a balance or change your details), except to deny that the debt exists."

 

to

 

"You have not written to the creditor acknowledging or admitting that you owe the debt during the previous six years."

 

So any pour soul reading that webpage is no longer going to be mislead. :)

 

HHmm..There would appear to be various 'official' or quasi-official websites where what you read isn't initially the truth, often it is the organisations 'interpretation' of the law as they see it but this may not be strictly accurate, examples are the TV Licensing site and sites that deal with issues regarding Leasehold/Service Charges Issues.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

HHmm..There would appear to be various 'official' or quasi-official websites where what you read isn't initially the truth, often it is the organisations 'interpretation' of the law as they see it but this may not be strictly accurate, examples are the TV Licensing site and sites that deal with issues regarding Leasehold/Service Charges Issues.

 

Andy

 

Totally agree.

 

It's not so much that some info posted on the web is wrong that I object to. After all, there are a billions of pages on the web that contain complete bollux.

 

It is who is putting out the incorrect info.

 

Like it or not, PayPlan is a widely used "free to the user" debt advice service. I'm not a great fan of theirs, but they have a position where people who don't know better might be inclined to trust what they post on a webpage more than many many other sources.

 

Not only that, but the webpage in question here often comes fairly high up the page ranking when searching for info on statute barred debts.

 

I've seen the info on that page posted on other forums as "gospel truth", and people have believed and acted on it.

 

Anyway, I digress. If a few people now get a more accurate idea of that facts then I'm happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Apologies for resurrecting this thread !!!! Was wondering if you use Payplan and they in turn contact your creditors and you decided not to go through with their dmp. Would this affect your debt as regard to statute barred?? Was asking as they have contacted creditors on your behalf. Is this an admission of debt??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I would think yes,

 

Because

 

You have given Payplan the legal right to discuss your debts.

You have informed Payplan of this amount, and they will have sent a letter of authority to creditor, also asking for what the current o/s balance is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...