Statute barred question

[moonwoman]

I'm just checking I understand statute barred correctly...

 

Nothing paid on the debt for 6 years is pretty clear. When it comes to 'no acknowledgement of the debt' does that mean acknowledgement by the person who owes the debt? If DCAs have sent letters chasing a disputed debt during that time, but have not been replied to or have been replied to but with the letter stating 'I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY' do their letters restart the statute barred clock every time they send one, or does the 'acknowledgement' apply only to the debtor or alleged debtor?

 

Sorry if this seems a really stupid question, but I have been wondering and just want to be sure I have the facts right.

 

Thanks.

 

moonwoman

[postggj]

acknowledge the debt is by letter or payment

 

end of

 

letters from a dca are irelevent if you ignore them

[moonwoman]

So it does have to be my acknowledgement. That's what I thought. Thanks.

[postggj]

correct

 

by letter or payment

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There is rearing it's ugly head a new challenge to statute barred status,

using the OFT Guidance Section 2.14 (b) para 2:

''If a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor during the 6 year

period before it became statute barred, then we do not consider it

unfair to continue to collect the debt''

 

I believe the 2 DCA's that I am dealing with are asserting that

they have sent numerous letters to the debtor and have records to

prove this,that even if the debtor HAS NOT replied sufficient ''contact'' has been made.

 

I hope to get this tested in court in the next 6-8 weeks the debtor is willing

to follow it through.

 

It is worrying though that to unconnected DCA's are

trying this on only a week apart.

 

 

 

Brig.

[postggj]

the key is regular contact

 

contact is two way

 

you could have changed address etc

 

the statute barred legislation is statute law so no county court judge can over turn that, so a county court judge will have to pass it up to the court of appeal for a decision

 

THATS MY TAKE ON IT

 

TIME WILL TELL

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That' what we are hoping for.

[ims21]

the key is regular contact

 

contact is two way

 

This was also my view which I posted in another thread about this.

 

 

you could have changed address etc

 

the statute barred legislation is statute law so no county court judge can over turn that, so a county court judge will have to pass it up to the court of appeal for a decision

 

Again, I also thought this, which is what I formed my opinion around as mentioned above.

 

THATS MY TAKE ON IT

 

TIME WILL TELL

 

I tend to agree that time will tell but what I can't get my head around is why or how OFT guidelines can be seen to overrule Statute.

 

I am, as ever, open to be educated on this of course

 

Regards

 

ims

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Nor can I, when pressed they gave silly answers, and

smoke and shadows, so they have been told to get

on with it:madgrin:

[postggj]

guidelines cannot over turn statute legislation or case law

[postggj]

Remember also

 

the statute of limitation legislation also states

 

acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor

 

so a dca just writing letters is pure hog wash

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

What I believe that the premise is that regular contact has been

made in the 6 year period BEFORE the debt became statute barred,.

as it says in the Guidance, I can see some perverse logic in the idea

that the fact of SB status is not being denied, just that because

of the alleged contact a DCA can still pursue payment

 

Brig.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I don't think that the acknowledgement has anything

to do with the stunt they are trying, it hangs on the fact

that contact has been made by the DCA, responded to or not,

within the 6 years BEFORE the statute barred date, not denying

that the SB date has been reached.

 

I am going to ring the OFT on this at my earliest opportunity, after

I get back from seeing my granddaughter.

[postggj]

Again i state contact

 

i can say you owe me £1000

 

you ignore it

 

so no acknowledgement

 

guidance is one thing

 

statute legislation another

 

if this goes into a full trial then i would think the judge is not going to be to impressed by the dca for trying this on

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I do hope so, the way I think this has been proposed

is that it is not a matter of any acknowledgement at

any time, the old ''valid if not read by you'' much loved

by pond life.

[ims21]

And I think what this is about is specifically the OFT.

 

If Mr Smith complains to them about a creditor trying to collect an SB debt and the OFT find that the creditor has sent numerous letters, they (under their guidelines) would not bring sanctions against or chastise the creditor.

 

If Mr Smith either sues for harassment or is dragged to court by the creditor (which IMHO would be foolish of them) then the Judge has to go by the letter of the law and therefore SB is SB...End of.

 

IMHO

 

Regards

 

ims

[cerberusalert]

If they got away with that argument can you imagine the mountains of generic letters that will be found which had been archived due to 'clerical error'?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi IMS, my concern is the ''in the 6 years before the debt becomes SB'' statement,

which to my mind at present is not going against the statute and is arguable on that

alone,as they are not denying the debt is SB just that they can continue collection here is no mention

of ''enforcement'' in either case.

[postggj]

Then oft guidance states that if you inform a creditor the debt is statute barred then they must cease all colection activity as it then comes under section 40 of the addmin of justice act

 

statute law again

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This hangs entirely I think on the fact of contact 2 way or not,

that the contact was made regularly in the 6 years prior to the SB

date, I shall be challenging on the ''regular contact'' is this once

a year,once a month, or weekly, they are not denying in any way

that the debt is not now SB, just that due to the contact was made

in that 6 year period, and therefore it is not unfair to attempt

collection, no mention of enforcement which would require a hearing

to approve.

[postggj]

THIS IS A RECENT ONE I HAD MYSELF IN REGARDS TO CABOT

 

 

Dear Mr postggj

 

Further to recent communictaions regarding the account detailed above.

 

We acknowledge that the account is statute barred and so governed by the limitation act 1980. Under the OFT guidelines it is accepted that legally the debt still exists but that collections of these debts must in no way be contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Whilst we don’t consider our actions to have breached any law or regulatory guideline, the account has been withdrawn from our regular collections process.

Contacting Cabot

If you have any queries, call one of our customer advisors on 01732 524615 (Minicom: 01732 524630).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Cabot Financial

[ims21]

THIS IS A RECENT ONE I HAD MYSELF IN REGARDS TO CABOT

 

 

Dear Mr postggj

 

Further to recent communictaions regarding the account detailed above.

 

We acknowledge that the account is statute barred and so governed by the limitation act 1980. Under the OFT guidelines it is accepted that legally the debt still exists but that collections of these debts must in no way be contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Whilst we don’t consider our actions to have breached any law or regulatory guideline, the account has been withdrawn from our regular collections process. Makes you wonder if they have an "irregular collections process"!

Contacting Cabot

If you have any queries, call one of our customer advisors on 01732 524615 (Minicom: 01732 524630).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Cabot Financial

 

 

ims

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That phrase must in no way breach the act is not I think relevant

to these cases, as said they are relying on contact being made in

the 6 year period prior to the SB date, and that it is not unfair

to continue to pursue payment, assuming that the pursuance

does not breach the A 0 J act.

 

I am looking for all arguments on this as one of the debt

is quite large.

[postggj]

Indeed

 

its starting to interfere with the addmin of justice act as well as the statute of limitations

 

two pieces of statute legislation and case law to back them up

 

i believe this is just sabre rattling by dca as they have been buying a load of lemons as late

Edited July 31, 2011 by postggj

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Could be, I do need to have some good arguments

on this.

I am presuming that on argument it will be that no

harassment can be claimed on the basis that they are

relying on OFT guidance regarding unfairness allowing collection

if the regular contact was made within the 6 years prior

to reaching SB, and that perhaps a letter a month cannot

be construed as harassment.