Weird statute of limitations question

[bobsa31]

Hi,

 

 

I have a weird Statute of limitations question:

 

 

I live in Scotland,

 

had a letter today from Buchanan Clark and Wells about a loan I took out in 1999 and defaulted on.

 

I haven't heard anything about this loan since around 2003.

 

I told them this was statute barred under the statute of limitations,

however, they have said a payment was made in 2010.

 

Now this was definitely not made by me.

The address for the debt on the letter was my mums address, so

I phoned her and she paid someone who came to the door £10 a month for a few months

thinking it was something to do with my dad (same name)

 

BCW are stating that because of this the Statute doesn't apply, she should know, she's a lawyer.

I think they are wrong though as there has been no contact or payment from me.

does anyone know where I stand on this?

 

 

Thank you in advance.

[renegadeimp]

Typical reply from bcw and other dcas that borders on obtaining money by deception.

[bobsa31]

See that's my thoughts on it, but sometimes there can be wee obscure rules that means she might be right. I'm just wanting to be sure before I phone them back or write to them.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I doubt the BCW 'operative' is a solicitor or even a paralegal.

 

 

Your best bet is to writ to BCW take a look at their website find the headman/woman and make a formal complaint the basis of which is you were not resident at that address and you had not authorised or made any such payments to be made.

 

 

The other point as serious and maybe more so is the fact the doors stepper must have disclosed personal information to your mother (I'm presuming from your user name and the fact your mother believed that this was your fathers debt that you are male?) quite clearly your mother was at best misled and at worst conned or coerced into making these payments.

 

 

There are breaches here of the Data Protection Act 1980 and of OFT Guidance.

 

 

It is clear from these facts you had no knowledge of the payments, the doors stepper could plainly see that your mother could not be the debtor.

 

 

I can write a formal complaint letter for you if you need help, just come back to the thread.

[dx100uk]

authorised person to act upon you behalf

 

not just the result that some doorstepper spoofed your mum into thinking they were bailiffs and paying

on your behalf.

 

you should NOT be conversing on the phone about your debts

 

esp to a DCA.

they ARE NOT BAILIFFS

and have

NO SUCH BAILIFF POWERS

 

as for the silly woman the 'claims' to be a solicitor or a rep of.

 

none of these fake/tame DCa solicitors are 'real'

 

its just a bloke that pops in once a month with a box of letterheads for them to use.

 

as a side issue

 

before they spoofed your mum

 

when was the last payment before that?

 

dx

 

 

 

dx

[bobsa31]

The last payment before they spoofed my mum would have been approx. 2003, that's also the last contact I had with them.

[citizenB]

It is my understanding that the payment needs to have been made by your or with your authorisation. I guess if they wanted to take this further you could make a very good case for them not only breaching DPA because they should not have been speaking to your Mum about the debt - but that they mis represented themselves which saw your Mum making these payments.

[bobsa31]

I have called them back and informed them of my position and that without doubt the debt is statute barred,

they are going to go back to the lender and ask them about it.

 

I told her that I wouldn't entertain any further correspondence or phone calls without, proof of the debt in the for of a signed

and dated original credit agreement and proof of payments received by me, not someone else, in the last 5 years.

 

 

She wasn't happy.

 

 

Thanks folks

[dx100uk]

you really should not be doing this on the phone!!

 

if you paid nowt from 2003 till

your mum in 2010

 

then IT WAS ALREADY STATUTE BARRED

 

when you mum started payments again!!

 

go DEMAND that moneyback

 

NOTHING can unbar a SB'd debt!!

[Peterbard]

I thought it would be an idea to see what we are up against.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52/section/10

 

 

Relevant acknowledgment for purposes of sections 6 and 7.

.

 

(1)

 

The subsistence of an obligation shall be regarded for the purposes of sections 6 [F17 and 8A] of this Act as having been relevantly acknowledged if, and only if, either of the following conditions is satisfied, namely—

.

 

(a)

 

that there has been such performance by or on behalf of the debtor towards implement of the obligation as clearly indicates that the obligation still subsists;

[Peterbard]

As DX says, this looks like it would ha e been SB when the payment was made by your mum anyway.

 

The sensible Scots say that the debt should be extinguished after the SB period has elapsed so, in theory I would agree that any payment made after this time should be returned.