Quick question - urgent

[qwerty_123]

I have some old debt that are very close to statue barred (if they are not already).

 

I just need clarification that If I send a 'prove-it' letter and they come back with some proof (if it's statue barred or not), would this re-set the statue barred clock as I have entered into communication.

 

Or do I just need to state 'I do not acknowledge this debt...' in the letter?

 

Thanks

[UnitedFront]

As far as I am aware, a denial of a debt cannot be seen as an acknowledgement of it; by definition surely one cannot be the same as the other.... ?

 

What are the alleged debts for? When was the last payment or acknowledgement? How long until you believe they are statute barred? Who is contacting you and what are they saying?

 

The answers to these will help people give you advice on what to do next.

 

Sometimes I've sent the prove it letter to effectively stretch things out when they have been very close to the statute barred limit and I have not, personally, heard of any case where sending a prove it style letter has been taken by a court to constitute an acknowledgement of the debt - although I can't say there has never been such an instance.

 

Cheers

UF

[andrew1]

UF is right, Just watch out they don't try and allocate the £1 CCA request if that's what you are doing, to the account. A few of the dca's have done this in the past.

[angry cat]

If and when you decide to send your, 'prove it' letter.

Simply head it up with:

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY NOR, ANY COMPANY THAT YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT.

[angry cat]

UF is right, Just watch out they don't try and allocate the £1 CCA request if that's what you are doing, to the account. A few of the dca's have done this in the past.

 

Any member, whatever their situation should mark on their CCA request and payment;

"CCA statutory fee only";

keep copies!

[UnitedFront]

Any member, whatever their situation should mark on their CCA request and payment;

"CCA statutory fee only";

keep copies!

 

Definitely!! I personally don't send a cca request if it's REALLY close to being statute barred.... I always either opt to ignore and wait it out, or send a standard prove it letter.... just my approach though, obviously, and others may have different approaches and views.

 

Cheers

UF

[dx100uk]

ignore them

 

its up to them to prove its not statue barred !!

 

dx

[qwerty_123]

Thanks all.

 

I have a couple of old debt's, very close to/or are statue barred.

 

The debt collection agencies have now tracked me down so I'm going to send a prove it letter (not a CCA request) to see what they come back with.

 

I was unclear as to if I state on the letter, "I have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to Mackenzie Hall, Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited or M&S Loans", and they subsequently provide written proof of the debt (it was statue barred or not) if it would reset the clock.

 

I suppose if they do provide proof, and it is over 6 years, I can just send them a statue barred letter.

 

Many thanks!

[dx100uk]

no sorry ignore them.

 

you write, you'll get a marker that you responded and the next leecher will try again & you'll have to do the same again.

 

they do not fwd on inthe phishing list that you scared them away with an SB letter, else the next leecher would not buy the list you are on.

 

dx

[Deb T]

no sorry ignore them.

 

you write, you'll get a marker that you responded and the next leecher will try again & you'll have to do the same again.

 

they do not fwd on inthe phishing list that you scared them away with an SB letter, else the next leecher would not buy the list you are on.

 

dx

 

Ignoring them is all well and good and advisable in most instances, however if you've been sent a letter by a dca asking for money etc and you have property and they know you have property then it may not be quite such a good idea to ignore them as in they may think 'they're ignoring us but land registry says they own the property we're writing to them at...so, send them a court summons etc. Could just work against you....I don't always hold that ignoring is the best policy.

[angry cat]

Ignoring them is all well and good and advisable in most instances, however if you've been sent a letter by a dca asking for money etc and you have property and they know you have property then it may not be quite such a good idea to ignore them as in they may think 'they're ignoring us but land registry says they own the property we're writing to them at...so, send them a court summons etc. Could just work against you....I don't always hold that ignoring is the best policy.

 

Agree, best wait a while and then send the 'prove it' letter,

In any event, just mark your correspondence with:

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY NOR, ANY COMPANY THAT YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT.

 

Do not mention any company/bank name(s) or account numbers, just their reference number.

 

Let them do the work...

[angry cat]

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/573-general-debt-letter-if-you-know-nothing-of-the-debt

[andrew1]

I can't lay my hands on it just now, but I was reading a few days ago about the fact that if for example, you had moved and not informed the creditor thereby being complicit in avoiding payment, then this could be construed under the CCA as a reason to object to the Statute barring of the debt by the creditor so be careful what you wish for. If I find the Section I'll pop it on. I did copy it somewhere, but there's so much on so many things to keep sometimes they get mislaid. Just keep this in mind.

[UnitedFront]

I can't lay my hands on it just now, but I was reading a few days ago about the fact that if for example, you had moved and not informed the creditor thereby being complicit in avoiding payment, then this could be construed under the CCA as a reason to object to the Statute barring of the debt by the creditor so be careful what you wish for. If I find the Section I'll pop it on. I did copy it somewhere, but there's so much on so many things to keep sometimes they get mislaid. Just keep this in mind.

 

Was that a thread on here or was it an article somewhere else? I ask because I've never heard of it and surely the DCA industry would have been all over this if that was the case? There's certainly nothing within the Limitation Act that prescribed that as the case - as far as I'm aware :/

 

UF

[Deb T]

Was that a thread on here or was it an article somewhere else? I ask because I've never heard of it and surely the DCA industry would have been all over this if that was the case? There's certainly nothing within the Limitation Act that prescribed that as the case - as far as I'm aware :/

 

UF

 

 

There is a fundamental difference, you 'may' be under some form of obligation to inform an original creditor of a new address, there is some mention of it in some terms and conditions of loans/credit card agreements but there is absolutely nothing set down where you should let a dca know of your whereabouts...as in you have no agreement with a dca...

[UnitedFront]

In that instance (where one has failed to inform oc) would that prevent a debt becoming stat barred though...? I still can't figure that it would and I can't find any authority to that effect despite having been trying all day.... I will continue trying tomorrow.

 

Cheers

UF

[Deb T]

In that instance (where one has failed to inform oc) would that prevent a debt becoming stat barred though...?

 

UF

 

 

I'm with you on that, I would hazard a guess and say that not forming the OC of an address change may add to costs say in a court, judge 'might' think you didn't quite fulfill your obligations but by the time it's got to court the account would be in default and terminated anyway so strictly speaking at the point of termination no contract thus exists so perhaps your obligations are also extinguished or at least those held under the terms and condtions...?

 

But once out of time as in 6 years then no, I don't think the debt could be brought back into play but rather than search for an example just read up on the relevant Limitations Act 1980 ...it's there where the answers are to be found.

Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58)

[pmhcfc]

In that instance (where one has failed to inform oc) would that prevent a debt becoming stat barred though...? I still can't figure that it would and I can't find any authority to that effect despite having been trying all day.... I will continue trying tomorrow.

 

Cheers

UF

 

Besides, how could they prove you didn't send them a letter?

 

I'm not saying anyone should lie per say, but if you tell them you did send them a change of address letter and they say they never received it, surely it'd be up to them to prove you didn't send it...if you get my drift.

[UnitedFront]

Exactly the trains of thoughts that I've been going along.... I've gone through the Limitation Act a trillion times now and I can't find anything, hence I've been searching for any authority on the matter to try and see if any superior court has ever taken such a parculiar interpretation of the law... and low and behold here I still am at 20 to 4 in the morning and still nothing

 

Must.... sleep....

 

Night all

UF

[Deb T]

Besides, how could they prove you didn't send them a letter?

 

I'm not saying anyone should lie per say, but if you tell them you did send them a change of address letter and they say they never received it, surely it'd be up to them to prove you didn't send it...if you get my drift.

 

Um, their proof would be for them to say 'we haven't received it' the judge in turn would say to you 'can you prove you sent it as recorded methods etc' ?

 

It isn't up to them to prove you've sent them something, it's altgoether the reverse as in you would have to prove you sent it...simply saying you did is not usually enough.

[harrassed senior]

A case of sauce for the goose sauce for the gander methinks!

 

Got me now searching 'what can re-set' the statute of limitations clock!'

[UnitedFront]

I'm still unable to find anything other than what the Limitation Act specifically prescribes; i.e. payment or acknowledgement.

 

I'm not giving up, however, and will persevere and keep searching. Between us we must be able to shed some light on this topic.

 

UF

[UnitedFront]

I might be very tired, given that insomnia has now kept me up for nearly 38 hours, but the more I think about this, the less it makes sense that the point mooted could be accurate.

 

One such thought going through my head is that the debtor having "gone away" in no way detracts from a creditors ability or right to sue; they are entitled to sue at the last known address and this has not, to the best of my knowledge, changed. On that basis it would be inequitable to allow such an excuse to delay the limitation periods prescribed.

 

I'm still trying to find anything that suggests that such an argument has been accepted at all, let alone on a regular basis.

 

Cheers

UF