Cause of action/statute barred

[Peterbard]

There are tow kinds of unauthorized overdraft identified in the act, the ones that have a tacit agreement to overdraw, these do not require an agreement although a notice must be sent when the account goes overdrawn stating the terms of the credit and a unauthorized overdraft, this is when a limit is exceeds or an account which does not have a tacit agreement goes overdrawn. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/74B

 

It may well be that an un-arranged overdraft will breach the current account agreement, but until this breach has been accepted by the bank and the facility terminated the COA will not have commenced.

[Peterbard]

Default is not cause of action the two are independent. COA is breach of contract, not when they are entitled to demand full payment. Although breach of contract may allow them to demand full payment.

 

 

(Default is caused by breach of contact)

 

The creditor has to have six years to recover the debt before he is barred from doing so, the COA is a prescription of the SOL if you want to see what it is you need to look there for the definition. An "action" is an action in court, this cannot take place solely on the default , the account must be terminated before any action can be taken.

[fletch70]

Sorry!

 

The back story is that since the CAG mails got hacked I was being sent about 100 spam e-mails a day. In the end I just gave up with e-mail altogether!

 

No problem..I can stop thinking you hate me now I know there is a perfectly logical reason ....don't burst that bubble please

[Desperate Daniella]

So how about if someone said to their bank, over a loan, "Sorry, I'm not prepared to pay you any more money," but the bank did nothing about it for many years, not even defaulted it. When would the six years start? Surely it couldn't start five years and 11 months after the debtor told them that?

[charharp]

There are tow kinds of unauthorized overdraft identified in the act, the ones that have a tacit agreement to overdraw, these do not require an agreement although a notice must be sent when the account goes overdrawn stating the terms of the credit and a unauthorized overdraft, this is when a limit is exceeds or an account which does not have a tacit agreement goes overdrawn. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/74B

 

It may well be that an un-arranged overdraft will breach the current account agreement, but until this breach has been accepted by the bank and the facility terminated the COA will not have commenced.

 

I disagree, contract breach is COA. Contract is breached when first payment is missed on repayment of unauthorized overdraft and it applies to the account not just the unauthorized part of the overdraft.

[charharp]

So how about if someone said to their bank, over a loan, "Sorry, I'm not prepared to pay you any more money," but the bank did nothing about it for many years, not even defaulted it. When would the six years start? Surely it couldn't start five years and 11 months after the debtor told them that?

 

No it would start when the first payment was missed.

[fletch70]

(Default is caused by breach of contact)

 

The creditor has to have six years to recover the debt before he is barred from doing so, the COA is a prescription of the SOL if you want to see what it is you need to look there for the definition. An "action" is an action in court, this cannot take place solely on the default , the account must be terminated before any action can be taken.

 

Dodge just to put a spoke in the works ..and for us thickos

If the action is starting proceedings.....what is the cause of that action, missing a payment, not responding to a DN? My thought would be the latter

[Peterbard]

So how about if someone said to their bank, over a loan, "Sorry, I'm not prepared to pay you any more money," but the bank did nothing about it for many years, not even defaulted it. When would the six years start? Surely it couldn't start five years and 11 months after the debtor told them that?

 

COA starts from when the bank demands full payment and is entitled take an action.

[charharp]

(Default is caused by breach of contact)

 

The creditor has to have six years to recover the debt before he is barred from doing so, the COA is a prescription of the SOL if you want to see what it is you need to look there for the definition. An "action" is an action in court, this cannot take place solely on the default , the account must be terminated before any action can be taken.

 

COA is first missed payment, default is minimum 3 missed payments. COA is a legal standpoint, a default is merely a recording on a credit file. They are two separate things.

[charharp]

COA starts from when the bank demands full payment and is entitled take an action.

 

I have to say you are wrong dodge. ThSt only applies to an overdraft that is within limits.

[fletch70]

Charharp

I know you have a vested interest in this as you have an account that by one definition will be SB in a few weeks and by another not until september. To be honest I would leave well alone

[Peterbard]

Dodge just to put a spoke in the works ..and for us thickos

If the action is starting proceedings.....what is the cause of that action, missing a payment, not responding to a DN? My thought would be the latter

 

Cause of action is a condition which is defined through the SOL and in the case law quoted, if the action cannot take place the previous default does not fulfill the condition of "cause". Because basically it would not have caused anything.

 

In any case this is defined as stated within the legislation and the cases mentioned an it is when the debt can be actioned in court. I feel that I am going over old ground again now so I will leave you to it.

[fletch70]

COA is first missed payment, default is minimum 3 missed payments. COA is a legal standpoint, a default is merely a recording on a credit file. They are two separate things.

 

Sorry but by my understanding default guidelines suggest 3 to 6 months or when it is clear that the relationship has broken down. So if prior to payment you enter a DMP I can see no reason why the creditor could not default you there and then.

A DN has no direct relationship to a default marked on your credit file

[Desperate Daniella]

No it would start when the first payment was missed.

 

That's what I always thought too.

[charharp]

Charharp

I know you have a vested interest in this as you have an account that by one definition will be SB in a few weeks and by another not until september. To be honest I would leave well alone

 

I'm probably going to leave it alone, the earliest I would get it off would be February and it's going to drop off in Aug/Sep anyway. I think this argument needs to be had though for anyone else who may need to know where they stand.

[Peterbard]

I have to say you are wrong dodge. ThSt only applies to an overdraft that is within limits.

 

and I have to say that you have not demonstrated any reason why I should re examine my belief on this, if an unorthorised overdraft is immediately repayable I would agree, but until the bank formally requests the repayment there is no cause of action.

 

After all the condition of unauthorized overdraft is not in ofitself a breach according to the supreme court in any case.

[Desperate Daniella]

It's quite clear from a number of threads on the forum that some people have been successful in getting a debt statute barred six years after they missed their first payment.

[charharp]

That's what I always thought too.

 

Things can take a while to settle in. I had a problem a few months understanding how a debt can be statute barred but still be on a credit file. They are two separate things with individual unrelated rules.

[charharp]

and I have to say that you have not demonstrated any reason why I should re examine my belief on this, if an unorthorised overdraft is immediately repayable I would agree, but until the bank formally requests the repayment there is no cause of action.

 

After all the condition of unauthorized overdraft is not in ofitself a breach according to the supreme court in any case.

 

Unauthorised overdraft is not a breach, missing the first repayment on it as set out in terms and conditions is.

[Desperate Daniella]

Things can take a while to settle in. I had a problem a few months understanding how a debt can be statute barred but still be on a credit file. They are two separate things with individual unrelated rules.

 

I had thought that if a debt was statute barred you could ask for it to be removed from your credit files. What do you think?

[sequenci]

It's quite clear from a number of threads on the forum that some people have been successful in getting a debt statute barred six years after they missed their first payment.

 

They're mistaken.

[Peterbard]

Unauthorised overdraft is not a breach, missing the first repayment on it as set out in terms and conditions is.

 

Then we are back to square one, the breach of a contract in of itself does not represent the COA only when the creditor acts on it and demands repayment of the sums due.

[charharp]

I had thought that if a debt was statute barred you could ask for it to be removed from your credit files. What do you think?

 

Statute barred has nothing to do with what's reported on a credit file, there is no requirement to remove a default because it's barred. However I'm led to believe asking for it to be removed as a gesture of goodwill because it is barred sometimes works.

[charharp]

Then we are back to square one, the breach of a contract in of itself does not represent the COA only when the creditor acts on it and demands repayment of the sums due.

 

I don't know what to say dodge it just isn't true. Can you substantiate your claim COA is when creditor demands full repayment?

[Desperate Daniella]

Statute barred has nothing to do with what's reported on a credit file, there is no requirement to remove a default because it's barred. However I'm led to believe asking for it to be removed as a gesture of goodwill because it is barred sometimes works.

 

Thank you.