Cause of action/statute barred

[fletch70]

Thanks Dodge, pretty much get it now.

 

As discussed before it strikes me that it is a system that is open to abuse but maybe in the worst case scenario you could show that unfair business practices were applied.

 

On another thread the Op has called NDL and they say it is uncertain and you need to see the T&C's

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404358-Statute-Barred-Accounts-on-Credit-Files&p=4415286#post4415286

[sequenci]

Thanks Dodge, pretty much get it now.

 

As discussed before it strikes me that it is a system that is open to abuse but maybe in the worst case scenario you could show that unfair business practices were applied.

 

On another thread the Op has called NDL and they say it is uncertain and you need to see the T&C's

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404358-Statute-Barred-Accounts-on-Credit-Files&p=4415286#post4415286

 

It's difficult to know for sure without seeing the agreeement. As I'm sure you know I'm a huge advocate of telephone advice BUT there are sometimes occasions where there can be difficulties in giving definitive answers.

[fletch70]

Absolutely . I am not sure Dodge gets how I feel (not a complaint just an observation) . I like to deal in absolutes so that you can say this debt becomes SB on xx/xx/xxxx however I know this is not possible.

 

I know this thread has annoyed one or two people greatly and that was not the intention . I wanted to get some guidance (and of course i wanted to be shown as right) . My interpretation seems to have been wrong as well so I have learnt something that could help someone .

[Peterbard]

Absolutely . I am not sure Dodge gets how I feel (not a complaint just an observation) . I like to deal in absolutes so that you can say this debt becomes SB on xx/xx/xxxx however I know this is not possible.

 

I know this thread has annoyed one or two people greatly and that was not the intention . I wanted to get some guidance (and of course i wanted to be shown as right) . My interpretation seems to have been wrong as well so I have learnt something that could help someone .

 

I understand what you mean, but the problem is not because of the COA date, that will always be on the termination of the contract, the problem is that the way contracts are terminated very much depends on the individual contract.

[sequenci]

Absolutely . I am not sure Dodge gets how I feel (not a complaint just an observation) . I like to deal in absolutes so that you can say this debt becomes SB on xx/xx/xxxx however I know this is not possible.

 

I know this thread has annoyed one or two people greatly and that was not the intention . I wanted to get some guidance (and of course i wanted to be shown as right) . My interpretation seems to have been wrong as well so I have learnt something that could help someone .

 

I don't think this thread would have annoyed anyone, and if it has more fool them. Debate is ALWAYS a good thing, and being able to see different opinions and arguments is incredibly important.

 

I hear what you say about definitives though. In the day job I often have to give people an answered based about scenarios with a few caveats thrown in for good measure. Advice is only as good as the facts it is based upon!

[charharp]

This seems to be an argument about nothing, for standard credit like credit cards or loans with set repayment dates statute barred is 6 years after the first payment was missed. The only ambiguity with this rule is for overdrafts...

[Peterbard]

This seems to be an argument about nothing, for standard credit like credit cards or loans with set repayment dates statute barred is 6 years after the first payment was missed. The only ambiguity with this rule is for overdrafts...

 

I suggest you re read the thread.

[charharp]

I'm busy I've only quickly scanned it so I might have missed something but I don't understand what the argument is. Stat Barred in 6 years from the first missed payment if no payment and written acknowledgment was made after that date, I don't understand how that rule can be interpreted differently.

[sequenci]

I don't understand how that rule can be interpreted differently.

 

Perhaps it's because the rule is actually different to what you think it is.

[Peterbard]

I'm busy I've only quickly scanned it so I might have missed something but I don't understand what the argument is. Stat Barred in 6 years from the first missed payment if no payment and written acknowledgment was made after that date, I don't understand how that rule can be interpreted differently.

 

You need to make time if you wish to understand, ll the reasoning is on here, I am sure you understand that it would be pointless to go over it again when you could just read previous posts.

[charharp]

Maybe, I'm not pretending to be well read on the subject because I'm not. I'm on here to receive advice not give it because I don't have the knowledge to do that. From everything I have seen though 6 years from first missed payment is how it is, even if the rule says differently in real life that's how it plays out. Even the National Debtline state this on their website and I've yet to see anybody say they had an account where stat barred failed after 6 years.

[sequenci]

. Even the National Debtline state this on their website and I've yet to see anybody say they had an account where stat barred failed after 6 years.

 

It doesn't, it says this:

 

When does the limitation period start running?

Whatever the limitation period is, for example six or twelve years, it is important to understand exactly when the time limit started. Under the Limitation Act, time starts to run from the 'cause of action'. This is not the same for all types of debt, so be careful. In this fact sheet, we look at the cause of action for the main types of debt.

 

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.

[Peterbard]

Maybe, I'm not pretending to be well read on the subject because I'm not. I'm on here to receive advice not give it because I don't have the knowledge to do that. From everything I have seen though 6 years from first missed payment is how it is, even if the rule says differently in real life that's how it plays out. Even the National Debtline state this on their website and I've yet to see anybody say they had an account where stat barred failed after 6 years.

 

You say you are not pretending to know, but really you are, with the greatest of respect you need to understand the process before you comment further.

[charharp]

It doesn't, it says this:

 

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.

 

Ah so the argument is what triggers the cause of action, it seems to be assumed that 1st missed payment starts the clock and the only exception is overdrafts which may only start the clock when officially recalled. Do you know of anybody on here who has had a statute barred claimed refused even though they meet these criteria?

[sequenci]

Do you know of anybody on here who has had a statute barred claimed refused even though they meet these criteria?

 

Not on here but certainly in the day job.

[Peterbard]

Not on here but certainly in the day job.

 

They are on here also. Even if they weren't the statute speaks for itself.

[Peterbard]

Anyway I am not getting dragged into going over everything again, so unless there is some new information i will leave this useful thread behind.

[fletch70]

I think as I have said on the other thread that often when people are on here they have been in a dmp or making payments after the account has been defaulted and therefore there has already been the COA. In those instances then it would be 6 years from the last payment.

 

I have to say Sequencis day job does make him somewhat reliable.

 

 

Sequenci...is your site team email address the same format as other site team members?

[fletch70]

Sorry to confuse again. I have found an article by a firm of solicitors that says in contract the start date is the date the contract is breached which does kind of make sense to me. If you Google pinsent mason limitations it should come up.

Of course in some contracts there will be no breach until the contract says there us.

[Peterbard]

Sorry to confuse again. I have found an article by a firm of solicitors that says in contract the start date is the date the contract is breached which does kind of make sense to me. If you Google pinsent mason limitations it should come up.

Of course in some contracts there will be no breach until the contract says there us.

 

It is a matter of when the sums under the contract become due, in some contracts all sums will become due under breach or on completion or on some other stipulation, the SOl can apply to all these.

In the case of a finance agreement unless the contract says otherwise the debtor is permitted to repay i installment, the total sums under the contract do not become prematurely due until this arrangement is terminated, this is the only time that an action can be taken for recovery.

[Mike_hawk]

FWIW....... probably little

 

I take the view that s6 applies absent any express term to withdraw/revoke within the agreement. I'd agree it's not a one size fits all and the original terms of the agreement will require scrutiny. Whether that's right or wrong in any individual case is another matter but it seems to fit the intent of s5 and s38 [context]. I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution if considering corresponding with any creditor when the point of bar may be contentious.

[sequenci]

I think as I have said on the other thread that often when people are on here they have been in a dmp or making payments after the account has been defaulted and therefore there has already been the COA. In those instances then it would be 6 years from the last payment.

 

I have to say Sequencis day job does make him somewhat reliable.

 

 

Sequenci...is your site team email address the same format as other site team members?

 

I've been called many things over the years but reliable as a new one to me haha. Limitations is something I have a keen interest in - now moreso than ever with this ongoing Hart argument kicking off.

 

I don't have a CAG e-mail address, sadly. My old one is full of spam so I no longer use it.

[sequenci]

FWIW....... probably little

 

I take the view that s6 applies absent any express term to withdraw/revoke within the agreement. I'd agree it's not a one size fits all and the original terms of the agreement will require scrutiny. Whether that's right or wrong in any individual case is another matter but it seems to fit the intent of s5 and s38 [context]. I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution if considering corresponding with any creditor when the point of bar may be contentious.

 

Agreed.

[Peterbard]

FWIW....... probably little

 

I take the view that s6 applies absent any express term to withdraw/revoke within the agreement. I'd agree it's not a one size fits all and the original terms of the agreement will require scrutiny. Whether that's right or wrong in any individual case is another matter but it seems to fit the intent of s5 and s38 [context]. I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution if considering corresponding with any creditor when the point of bar may be contentious.

 

Yes and the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act on a regulated agreement of course.

[charharp]

I think it's good things get hammered out like this, there are differing opinions and it's helpful to see which ones hold out under scrutiny. As long as people are open minded that they may actually be wrong and don't to their opinion as a face saving last stand it can only be a good thing.