Misleading information from PayPlan on statute barred debts?

[gyos]

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?

 

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.

 

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

[loobyloo85]

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.

[loobyloo85]

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

[cerberusalert]

How does a creditor prove that they've "contacted" a debtor?

 

Just because they may have written letters or telephoned it does not mean they've contacted anyone really.

[andydd]

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

[gyos]

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 May 17, 2010 by gyos

[andydd]

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

[gyos]

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

 

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.

[andydd]

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

 

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

[gyos]

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.

[pfjc1000]

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??

[pfjc1000]

bump

[ihateyes]

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.