A Statute Barred Question...

[Buncrana]

Hi Guys,

 

 

I found this on the net this morning, but perhaps someone can clear something up for me.

 

 

''

How long can a creditor chase a debt?

 

This is dependent on the type of debt you have. The most common form of debt which people ask about in our forum is unsecured debts eg credit cards, personal loans, store cards, catalogues, bank loans, finance company loans etc. The Limitations Act 1980 states that when the following conditions are met then the debt cannot be pursue through the courts. The conditions are:-

 

• That the creditor has not taken court action against you, eg CCJ, AND
  
• You have not made any payments on the debt over the last 6 years,AND
  
• During the years, you haven't written to the creditor acknowledging that owe them money.
  

As you can see all three conditions must be met in order for the debt to be "time barred". So the answer to the above question is 6 years.''

 

 

My question is, if the person who owes the debt does not contact the creditor if they move address, do these conditions still apply?

 

 

When would the Statute Barred clock start, if it indeed does, if this was the case?

 

 

I'm getting conflicting information on this, could do with a definitive answer

 

 

Confused.com???

 

 

Buncrana

[BankFodder]

What is the conflicting information you have received and from where.

 

The information you have posted is broadly correct.

However it would be better to say that the 6 years runs from the time that a payment fell due and you did not pay it.

 

Under the three conditions you have posted above, if you had a loan and the first installment only fell due 7 years after the loan was made - then the loan would be SB even though it was being operated within the terms of the loan agreement.

 

There has to be a failure - or breach - in order to start the SB clock

[Buncrana]

What is the conflicting information you have received and from where.

 

The information you have posted is broadly correct.

However it would be better to say that the 6 years runs from the time that a payment fell due and you did not pay it.

 

Under the three conditions you have posted above, if you had a loan and the first installment only fell due 7 years after the loan was made - then the loan would be SB even though it was being operated within the terms of the loan agreement.

 

There has to be a failure - or breach - in order to start the SB clock

 

 

Thanks for that Bankfodder

 

 

Mrs B had to call Step Change this morning (as per a different thread).

 

 

I also spoke to them as I wanted to clarify what I've asked above.

 

 

Step Change say that the debt cannot be statute barred because the debtor did not inform the creditors of house moves, as she should have done, and were probably sending letters to her previous addresses.

 

 

I always thought that the clock starts from the date of the last payment....

[BankFodder]

Well both are wrong. The Step Change advice is nonsense - but so also is the advice about date of last payment.

The trigger date is the date of the last failed payment

[Buncrana]

Well both are wrong. The Step Change advice is nonsense - but so also is the advice about date of last payment.

The trigger date is the date of the last failed payment

 

 

Now that would make a lot more sense

 

 

So in effect, even though Mrs B did not tell any of her creditors that she was moving, the clock starts from the first missed payment, not the default date?

 

 

As Stigman said in another thread (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?424750-1st-Credit-lloyds-bank), the clock could start long before the default is issued

[BankFodder]

That's my view, yes.

 

However in some ways the SB rule is anachronistic and there seems to be a certain logic in recognising a situation where a debtor has deliberately set out to avoid creditors for a period of 6 years.

For instance, the law relating to adverse possession prevents an owner of land who has not taken action against a trespasser for 12 years, from asserting his proprietary rights over the land. However an element of that doctrine is that the trespasser must have exercised their adverse possession openly - Nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, meaning openly, without stealth or interruption. I have never understood why the law should be different in respect of alleged debtors. However, that's the law and it is there to be used - in the same way that creditors make the best of any laws they find in their favour.

However, if I was representing a creditor, I would be urging a court to exercise their discretion under the Limitation Act on the basis of the nec vi rule.

[Stigman]

The Step Change advice is nonsense

 

Although in this case the Op was just told wrong advise, Stepchange are funded by donations from Barclay's Bank, Lloyds & numerous others.

 

Stepchange in my opinion wants the debtor to pay token payments of £1 to keep the debt alive for the very organisations that fund them.

 

Stigman

[sequenci]

Although in this case the Op was just told wrong advise, Stepchange are funded by donations from Barclay's Bank, Lloyds & numerous others.

 

Stepchange in my opinion wants the debtor to pay token payments of £1 to keep the debt alive for the very organisations that fund them.

 

Stigman

 

I think that is likely to be nonsense. I would put it down to the adviser being poorly trained.

[Buncrana]

I didn't realise Step Change were bank funded, that doesn't seem right to me...

 

 

Bankfodder, I know what you're saying, and I can remember a case from years ago in Archway, North London, where a squatter had lived in the property for 25 years, and then put in a claim for ownership, which the courts gave him. A nice big three storey job in Fairbridge Rd N19. That house was worth around £500k then, probably double that now...

 

 

We'll see what Step Change come up with tomorrow. Hopefully it will be good news

 

 

Thanks once again guys

[sequenci]

All the major debt charities receive funding from financial institutions to a certain degree. Some also get government funding too. That doesn't mean that they are going to be working on the side of the bank than the consumer. What I will say, though, is that some are FAR better trained when it comes to matters of a technical nature than others.

[Buncrana]

All the major debt charities receive funding from financial institutions to a certain degree. Some also get government funding too. That doesn't mean that they are going to be working on the side of the bank than the consumer. What I will say, though, is that some are FAR better trained when it comes to matters of a technical nature than others.

 

 

 

I would have thought that a charity such as Step Change would have known the correct answer to my question, thankfully you guys are around

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I would have thought that a charity such as Step Change would have known the correct answer to my question, thankfully you guys are around

Some of these "debt Charities" also receive funding from debt purchasers and DCA even have representative involved in the running of them!!

[sequenci]

I would have thought that a charity such as Step Change would have known the correct answer to my question, thankfully you guys are around

 

Some have a higher calibre of staff and training than others, I can assure you of that.

[SabreSheep]

Just a question.

If a creditor lodges N1 5.5 years from when the clock started ticking and as thw debtor had moved would that not result in a jummary judgement and CCJ which would add another 3 years unless you then later found out and had it set aside? Thus starting the whole process again and having to defend the claim?

[sequenci]

You would need a reason to defend the claim. The wrong address is unlikely to be unless the creditor was made aware of the right address to serve documents to. Even then a defence is likely to be needed. Also set aside applications have a 'promptness' test, it may well be that the court doesn't allow an application after 3 years.