Jump to content


Statute barred question


moonwoman
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3919 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

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Agree but do we not rely on the guidance that if informed

that a debt is SB it considered unfair to pursue if the debtor

informs the creditor that it is SB and will not be paying, this is not statute

but guidance.

What the crux of these 2 cases is the contact BEFORE THE SB DATE,

and the OFT Guidance on this situation.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but continued enforcement is contary to the admin of justice act

 

the statute of limitations state its unlawful to take action once informed statute barred, not guidance by the oft

 

guidance means nothing

 

its just a way a court expects a party to behave and has no legal status

 

take an employment tribunal

 

an ET court expects a litigator to use the ACAS code of practice first, again, not statute law, only guidance

 

the key is acknowledge the debt

 

END OF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi post I'm going to do a lot of reading in the next month

in order to mount defences on these two cases.

I thank you sincerely for tolerating this on a Sunday evening.

 

Redards,

 

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds more like the DCA's are desperately looking for anything to hang their hat on, guidelines are just that. They choose to ignore many of the guidelines when it suits them, cake and eat spring to mind.

 

No doubt some will be thinking that they can pull the wool over some of the judges eyes, as with the Carey case.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have put the question to the OFT verbally

and by e-mail today, the verbal reply was an

inconclusive maybe, might no be, would

need to seek clarification.

So will wait for the response to the e-mail.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a conversation with an advisor at Consumer Direct re: Section 2.14 (b) para (2) of OFT

Guidance On Debt Collection.

She has stated that if a creditor has made regular attempts to contact

a debtor and can prove that letters of phone call have been made/sent bfore

the statute barred date and before the debtor has informed the creditor

that they will not be paying the the creditor can still pursue, it would be

down to a judge to allow or disallow proceeding, but such proceedings

could be started.

 

I'm waiting for information from the OFT for confirmation.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit of a non-answer really.

 

The only way they can prove contact has been made is by showing their mail has been signed for by the person they are contacting. or would a reconstituted/reconstructed log of letters & 'phone calls suffice? I doubt it. ;)

 

EVEN IF NOT READ BY YOU indeed.

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I asked now for a definitive answer from

the OFT.

I can see the argument that the creditor has made

all possible effort to contact the debtor is open to challenge

but such correspondence is archived as I have found in the past at some cost,

I think it hangs on the fact that the effort to contact has been made

during the 6 year period,and the debtor has NOT stated the debt is SB or refused to pay.

 

I have 2 cases now running on these lines, and previously they

had numerous letters that they ignored, and had not realised

that the debts could be (no proof at this stage) stat barred,

the ''creditor'' started litigation in both cases a couple of

weeks after the SB dates, claims have been issued.

We have counsel advising but it will be a long process.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is the creditor has had 6 years to commence court action so why wait till after SB. I wouldn't be overly concerned about them continuing to ask as it's only their own time & effort wasted, but even with regular attempts of contact prior to SB I can't imagine a judge allowing proceeding when they've had 6 years previous to issue but didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that it is not the question of waiting 6 years as we all know debts

are sold and assigned at all times often the DCA's are not aware that the debt

is reaching stat barred as they are not given that information when it is sold

or assigned therefor they will often have been sending out letters during

the 6 year period , and may continue to do so after the SB date, and if

the debtor has not stated the debt is stat barred and they will not pay, then

the debt can still be recovered.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debt is statute barred and you receive a threatogram from a dca

 

then just write back stating statute barred then its game over

 

i can see this going the same way as if a debtor had a ccj , but the creditor waited over six years to enforce,

 

the judge will just say

 

tough

 

i realy do believe this is going noware and the dca will withdraw at the last minute to spare the judges scorn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post, I'm really not sure yet where this is going!!

I wait for answers from the OFT.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

i realise you are waiting on guidance from the oft , but thats the problem in a knutshell

 

its only guidance and not statute law

no matter how the words are twisted around

 

lets see what they come back with

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post, it seems ''we'' take parts of the guidance as being irrevocable as in

2.14 (b) it's unfair to press for payment etc.

but ''we'' ignore and refute the next para, as a breach of statute.????

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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''

 

collect maybe

 

but enforce is another story

 

or am i barking up a new tree

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the crux, but what is regular contact:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Still following this one....and I'm getting more :confused:

 

In my simplistic, logical way of thinking...guidance is guidance and statute is statute.

 

What is the point of our legal system based on statute and case law if it can amended or re-interpreted by guidance?

 

:noidea:

 

Regards

 

ims

If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an am becoming more convinced, that what is bing

applied is that the debtor has NOT stated in writing that THE DEBT IS

STATUTE BARRED AND THEY WILL NOT BE PAYING, this appears to be

a requirement to prevent further litigation, but collection activity

can still be made.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you cant tell a creditor it is statute barred until it is? They would not accept you saying it is SB in 18 mnths so dont contact me would they.

 

Not looked through thr guidelines recently, but I would bet there is a lot a debtor could use on a similar basis but a judge would not put up with it.

 

Business Dictionary

Definition

Recommended practice that allows some discretion or leeway in its interpretation, implementation, or use.

 

Says it all.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly that is what makes section 2.14 (b) para 2 so dangerous,

it gives that lee way, and is easily interpreted in a number of ways.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

RIGHT let us see if we can't clear some very simple things up, first of all:

 

1) Statute Law is supreme and cannot be struck down or dis-applied by any judge, in any court, in this country (bar some very peculiar and unusual situations involving EU Law etc).

 

2) The OFT Guidelines are just that - GUIDELINES!! Holders of a Consumer Credit License agree to abide by them, but they can NEVER EVER EVER EVER be considered as in any way over or above any Legislation made by our Queens sovereign Parliament!!

 

3) PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT SECTION 40!!!! In consumer cases is DOES NOT APPLY ANY MORE!!!!! Instead please consider the contents of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations!!

 

Now, moving onto the issue initially questioned in this thread:

 

Put simply, it is quite irrelevant, in all honesty. Fact is, if the debt had become statute barred then there is no court in the country that can make you pay it. End of!!

 

An alleged creditor, debt collector (or any other person) simply writing to you cannot re-start the clock. An alleged creditor, debt collector (or any other person) speaking to you on the telephone cannot re-start the clock.

 

To restart the clock, you must either make a payment or a signed written acknowledgement (although I personally believe the omission of a signature would not be definitive if it could be proved that the letter was from the debtor and not a fake).

 

What the OFT say on this matter has no effect on a creditor's ability to get a Judgment on a statute barred debt - there is no chance, with a proper defence!!

 

What the OFT's guidance may mean is that the creditor can continue to write to you. They still can't do anything else to enforce the debt.

 

Hope this clears things up slightly.

 

Cheers

UF

I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...