Carter sent Claim on Loan, replied it was SB'd, Carter says not - Default 11/08 - help

[James31]

I'm helping somebody this evening,

 

 

they've come to me a bit late but never mind.

 

 

Bryan Carter issued a court claim in Aug 2014 for a debt for which last had a payment Dec 2007.

 

Defendant entered a defence on the basis that the debt is statute barred.

 

Some mediation took place, no details of that yet and a prelim hearing was arranged for 3 days ago,

I'm waiting to find out what happened there on both counts.

 

Prior to that,

a letter from Bryan Carter said that they would not be attending that prelim hearing,

acknowledged that the defendant says the debt is SB but

then states it isn't SB because the account wasn't defaulted until Nov 2008 (11 months after the last payment).

 

Copies of the statements which form part of the claim from BC show that there have been no payments indeed, since Dec 2007.

 

I can only presume they are hoping the defendant will crack and not go to the hearing proper and leave BC winning by default.

Not sure how they can claim the account is not SB because of the default.

 

 

In their words:

 

"x. The defendant in his defence states that the claim is state barred"

"y. The account fell into default on xx Nov 2008. The account is not statute barred."

 

Seems like utter nonsense to me. Do they act stupid on purpose, purely in hope?

 

Seems like an easy one from here

- write to the court asking them to strike out the claim on the basis of the debt being SB

and write to BC asking for proof that payment was made in the 6 years leading up to them submitting a claim.

 

As I understand it, 6 years starts upon the cause of action and not when the account was defaulted by the original creditor.

[James31]

I've heard back...

 

"I contacted the court about mediation and the phone number didn't work,

 

 

I emailed them and it bounced back saying they had changed details but would contact me within 5 working days.

 

 

Nothing..

 

 

In the direct questionnaire before this I said I was open to mediation and they didn't contact me.

 

Went to preliminary on Monday,

judge said he was confused by what they had sent him.

 

 

I had to explain it all to him.

He said he could see my point and that he thinks it will need to go to a hearing to be decided in which case

I can then present my evidence as I did to him."

[ims21]

Yes, the six years does indeed start with the cause of action.

 

What type of debt is this? ....Loan/Credit Card/HP/Current Account/Mobile Phone or "other" ?

[ims21]

Moved the Financial Legal forum

[citizenB]

If the last payment was in December 2007,

then the first missed payment which would have been January 2008.

 

 

They could have issued a Default Notice at the very least a couple of months after that - it was their choice that they didn't.

 

 

As most creditors take up to 6 months to place a default marker on the credit file,

I would say that you are quite safe in arguing that it is statute barred.

 

I am sure others will pop in with their views.

[James31]

Thanks. It was a loan. Original amount was 7k, plus interest - they are claiming just under 10k.

[Guest]

is a loan, that might complicate things.

when did the loan term expire? when did they first ask for the full amount outstanding, before or after its term expiry?

[citizenB]

Do you have the terms and conditions and does it say anything about what they will do if you miss a payment(s).

[James31]

The loan was taken out in June 2005 over 7 years.

 

Last payment was Dec 2007,

default added Nov 2008.

 

Was sold to the claimant in Dec 2012,

 

Notice of assignment was sent in Jan 2013,

 

 

court claim was made in Apr 2014

- I don't know why it's taken so long to get to this point from April,

 

don't have all the details yet.

[Guest]

if default date was nov 08 (within the loan term), then seems they wld've asked for full amount outstanding prior to that.

q is when. as that 'when' cld be when the cause may have started? imo.

[James31]

I've had a copy sent of the T&C's but unfortunately the copy isn't readable. The main features of the front page are OK, but the T&'C's are pants.