Cause of action/statute barred

[ims21]

Yes it is page 59 B3

 

It states that there are two conditions first that a" relevant claim" must not have been made and second that there had been no acknowledgment, not just that there must have been no acknowledgment

 

Here you go...this is the document

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consultations/OFT664Rev_Debt_collection_g1.pdf

[ims21]

Just looking at this section of the OFT guidance, it is being widely misquoted on here as saying that there must be a relevant claim OR acknowledgment, which is not what the section says, it says AND, in other words both criteria must apply, not either an acknowledgment or relevant claim but the relevant claim AND no acknowledgment.

 

On this specific part, I am not sure that there is mis-quoting going on.

 

I can't find a thread where it is said "a claim or acknowledgement"

 

It is clear that if no claim has been raised by the creditor and the debtor has not acknowledged in the relevant period then SB is valid.

 

What is stated on many threads is "a payment or an acknowledgement" in the relevant period which does agree with the OFT guidance.

 

What is being discussed on this thread is the start date of the relevant period.

[ims21]

 

Post 11

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?411273-1st-Credit

 

 

Sorry Dodge, I am really not trying to be difficult but I can't see in that post where it says "a claim or acknowledgement"?

 

This is the post....My Bold

 

Just to clarify :

 

It is accepted and OFT Guidance 2003/2006 updated November 2012 states SB No Relevant Contact or Relevant Acknowledgment e.g. Payment or Unequivocal Written Acknowledgment that Liability exists mad e in 6 years (5 in Scotland) This idea that a default is the cause of action is wrong cessation of payments is the cause of action, the default is the action taken.

 

This arises from a case involving a hire purchase agreement and is not relevant here.

 

The OFT has seen no reason to change its Guidance on this.

[ims21]

You copied it IMS relevent contact or relevant claim, this is at best only half the story as there is the question of the commencement of the SOL date, this does not occur when the payment is missed nor when there has been no relevent contact, this occurs when the creditor has a relevant claim.

 

It is widespread on here for people to just say that as long as there has been no contact or payment for six years that the account will be SB and it is just not the case.

As said before the SOL is in two parts the cause of action and the acknowledgment both must be satisfied in order that the account is SB it is not a question of either or.

 

 

Yes I am not talking about the SOL bit at the moment as I think that sequenci has covered that.

 

What I was concerned about was the bit about claim and acknowledgement.

 

Unless my eyes are deceiving me or I am going mad, I cannot see the word "claim" mentioned in the above quoted post anywhere.

[ims21]

I am glad you agree with Sequency because we are in accord on this .

 

I think we are getting there

 

Ok it says relevant contact, which means acknowledgment unless you can think of any other meaning of it, so Brigadear is saying acknowledgement or acknowledgment, which is misquoting the guidance as well as being nonsense

 

I think it still stands that an unequivocal acknowledgement of a debt within the relevant period from the debtor will reset the clock. A SAR, for example, is not an acknowledgement. In my view, relevant contact from the creditor's side is a court claim and not a letter or phone call from their side.

[ims21]

The relevant contact is the COA it is the point where the creditor can commence his claim, this is not an acknowledgment, this is section 5 of the act.

 

 

Yes I can see that which is why "Relevant Contact" resets the clock.

 

Acknowledgement comes form the debtor's side but in terms of "Relevant Contact" from the creditor's side, what constitutes "Relevant Contact" other than a court claim or perhaps the TN? Are there any other definitions of "Relevant Contact" from the creditor's side?

[ims21]

I was once told that the annual statement you tend to get was relevant contact but i have tended to dismiss that idea. Hopefully not wishful thinking.

I am sure that i read somewhere today that court action is the only relevant contact.

 

Yes I don't think that an annual statement can be classed as relevant contact. DCA's can knock those up willy nilly.

Edited December 2, 2013 by ims21

[ims21]

Final warning to all on this thread where the cap fits.

 

There will be no further posts which contain personal abuse, insults or other material designed to incite a flame war.

 

I draw your attention to 3.5 of the site rules here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?9-Forum-rules.-Please-read-these-before-posting

 

Any such posts will simply be removed and moderation will almost certainly follow.

[ims21]

Thank you IMS. We get passionate and defensive all at the same time if that makes sense. I would rather not be moderated again

 

Sensible mature discussion - Yes

 

Childish personal abuse - No

 

It really is that simple.

[ims21]

Dodgeballs quotings of prehistoric cases do invite sarcasm.

 

As I've said....discussion yes.....personal insults no.

 

Bear in mind that some people might find the topic of this thread interesting so I don't think it is too much to ask to keep it on topic.

 

If people cannot post without being insulting then they had best not post.

 

Again, as I've said, it really is quite simple.