dca chasing nationwide debt - what to do?

[Chrissie1980]

June its come up as a new entry as far as I can make out it only has one default entry and that is June this year

[Chrissie1980]

It did still state as being recorded till Feb 2015

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Ok none of this affects the fact that the debt becomes statute barred, well before the default date.

 

With the new AK entry it opens up the opportunity to ask for proof of the debt.

 

I will tomorrow go back through the whole thread and work out a strategy for you.

[Peterbard]

This is what the fact sheet actually says which concurs with the case law. ANYTHING HERE ABOUT IT STARTING ON A MISSED PAYMENT

 

The cause of action (when the limitation

period starts running) for simple contract debts,

is usually when your agreement says the creditor

is able to take court action because you have

fallen behind with payments. This is normally

after one or two missed payments. Sometimes, a

debt will have no set repayment time. For these

sorts of debts, working out the cause o

[Peterbard]

WRONG AGAIN!! DN/default date termination has nothing to do with a debt becoming SB.

 

OFT Guidance on Debt Collection 2003/2006 updated Nov. 2012 (annexeB) read with the 2006 document.

Section 2.14 (b) It is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the limitation period (6 years) E & W.

 

Regular contact is defined also and standard debt collection letters do not affect the limitation period'

 

Definitions: Relevant acknowledgment is: any payment made by the debtor (or his agent) in this limitation period) i.e. no payment made in six clear years. Dates from when a payment was due and not made (last delinquent payment) after which no further payment was ever made.

Relevant acknowledgment. Unequivocal written acknowledgment that a liability still subsists made within the limitation period.

 

Tried /Argued/Tested and stands !!

 

All else re termination/default notices (DNs are merely notices of intention to default to default an account and have no relevance to statute barring nor does the actual default date.

 

I cannot understand why you continue to act like a troll constant posting of spurious data is not doing you or the OPs any good.

 

Absolutely nothing to do with commencement period of the SB clock the OFT guidance refers to collection practices.

[Chrissie1980]

Excellent thank you Brigadier

[Peterbard]

The date of the last delinquent payment is the cause of action all else is irrelevant.

 

The guidance that has just been quoted says a few missed payments, how do you reconcile that with your belief that it is started by on 1 missed payment ?

[Peterbard]

Thank you renegadeimp, Brigadier and unclebulgaria I was getting really confused there...... What should I do to keep them off my back till April?

 

I would find out when the agreement was terminated so that you can ascertain the correct statute barr date. Do not depend on this being in April until you know.

[Peterbard]

Hi Chrissie,on what date did they update this and more importantly is the default the same as the previous entry?

 

AK cannot place a default at this stage themselves and can only up date the original entry with their details, the original default date cannot be changed.

 

The CRA report has absolutely nothing to do with statute barr this records you repayment record, that is all, a company can register you as in default on the credit file and not terminate or chase you for full repayment for years after, it is a complete nonsense to believe otherwise.

[Peterbard]

Had enough of this thread I just hope someone who knows what they are on about contributes because I am out.

[renegadeimp]

You are wrong. Plain and simple. Brigs advice is spot on and is the same advice that oft/cab and various debt charities state.

[citizenB]

This fact sheet from National Debtline confirms the position.

 

http://www.bdl.org.uk/images/25_EW_NDL_Liability%20for%20debts%20and%20the%20limitations%20act.pdf

 

For this type of debt, the SB time clock runs from the date of the missed payment, where in the agreement it states that the creditor can take court action.

 

 

 

 

Many DCAs will argue that limitation accrues from the time when the "default notice" is issued. It does not.

 

Limitation clock starts ticking from when the payment is due and not paid not when they send a default notice.

 

We see often that CRA entries will date 5 or 6 months ahead of when the payment was missed.

 

People need to be sure that they aren’t being hoodwinked and that the DCA is extending limitation so they can sue when they are not allowed to.

 

These are the facts.

[IdaInFife]

as in the Limitaction act - the account becomes statute barred from when the cause of action accrued - this means when the company can take any action which is normally after any missed payment

 

Its all there in the Limitation Act Dodgeball

[unclebulgaria67]

The CRA report has absolutely nothing to do with statute barr this records you repayment record, that is all, a company can register you as in default on the credit file and not terminate or chase you for full repayment for years after, it is a complete nonsense to believe otherwise.

 

The CCA that the debtor was issued with will state when a debt is considered to be in default and a default notice will be issued, with CR noted. This is usually about a month after a due payment had been missed. The CR will then continue to show the debt as not being paid, until a payment is made. If the OC sells the debt to a DCA, the DCA will take over the defaulted debt on the CR.

 

The default date on the CR should be accurate and represent when the debt went into default per the CCA. If the OC failed to issue a DN at the correct time, then upon receipt of information confirming an earlier default date, the CR must be corrected by whoever is responsible for the CR data, which is both the current debt owner and the CRA.

 

As has been said, they OC cannot issue a DN with the wrong information. SB is from the date of the first missed payment.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This is what the fact sheet actually says which concurs with the case law. ANYTHING HERE ABOUT IT STARTING ON A MISSED PAYMENT

 

The cause of action (when the limitation

period starts running) for simple contract debts,

is usually when your agreement says the creditor

is able to take court action because you have

fallen behind with payments. This is normally

after one or two missed payments. Sometimes, a

debt will have no set repayment time. For these

sorts of debts, working out the cause o

Shot yourself in the foot there, wiki law out of context.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Absolutely nothing to do with commencement period of the SB clock the OFT guidance refers to collection practices.

 

Rubbish the Guidance is clear as to how and when the limitation is viable.

[Peterbard]

Thank heavens for open minds. I was absolutely convinced Dodgeball was incorrect, and that for a simple contract the start date 'cause of action.' I believed, as do many above, that this was from the date when the creditor could first take action, which would normally be after the first missed payment.

 

However, the Court of Appeal in November 2012 (pretty recently, so unsurprising most of us don't know about it) ruled differently. Please, as I did, keep an open mind and read the following article (ALL of it!)

 

http://www.forwarn.com/news/db.asp?PageName=Court_of_Appeal_provide_welcome_relief_for_Finance_Companies

 

It is extremely clear and cannot really be argued with. I am sure Dodgeball would not gloat over his victory proving us all wrong.

[renegadeimp]

edit: reading post again. That article seems to be VERY biased, and indeed, even the OFT/FCA and fos still state the other limitation argument. It does seem that the judge was either wrong in his judgement or inept at his arguments. Not to mention is had no bearing since it is a completely different agreement.

[IdaInFife]

Sorry but this was for a secured loan not unsecured - i suggest you read the limitations act to get the correct information

[citizenB]

That is a Hire Purchase Contract .

[Peterbard]

edit: reading post again. That article seems to be VERY biased, and indeed, even the OFT/FCA and fos still state the other limitation argument. It does seem that the judge was either wrong in his judgement or inept at his arguments.

 

Is the fact that Legal Precedent has been set not rather significant though? I'm not saying I disagree with you incidentally, I thought otherwise, but there is no disputing that ruling.

[renegadeimp]

It's a legal precedent to a completely different form of agreement. if we were discussing HP agreements, then i would wholeheartedly agree with you. Unfortunately, HP agreements are not the same as consumer finance ones that cover loans etc.

[IdaInFife]

It's a legal precedent to a completely different form of agreement. if we were discussing HP agreements, then i would wholeheartedly agree with you. Unfortunately, HP agreements are not the same as consumer finance ones that cover loans etc.

 

Hit on the head

[Peterbard]

On 10 October 2012, the Court of Appeal handed down an extempore judgment in BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited v Hart (2012) on an issue which will be of considerable interest to consumer and asset finance providers: when does the limitation period for bringing a claim for the unpaid balance expire? In a pragmatic and sensible decision, the Court of Appeal decided that the cause of action to recover the unpaid balance did not start until the lender had served a termination letter or accepted the debtor’s repudiation of the agreement.

 

http://www.squiresanders.com/files/Publication/3b54fa41-fa7d-4613-a79e-f8f907f1a1bd/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/fae9b1b3-599c-4d31-867f-fd9ff1367f9c/Timing-is-Everything-Court-of-Appeal-Hands-Down-Decision-on-when-Claims-Under-Hire-Purchase-Agreements-are-T.pdf

[renegadeimp]

Keywords there being asset finance. It has no bearing on what we are discussing.