@o2 Lowell response to Statute Barred Letter on o2 mobile 'debt'

[madmatt101]

Hi Have received the following response from lowell to the statute barred template

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

We appreciate that the last payment towards account ***1*** may have been more than six years ago

but this debt did not become fully due and payable until O2 (UK) Ltd issued a Default Notice,

which you did not comply with.

 

 

According to our information, the Default Date was 28 October 2009 and, therefore, we consider that the debt is enforceable for 6 years from that date.

 

Please note that we also hold the following account for you;

 

Our Reference – ***2***

Original Creditor – O2 (UK) Ltd

Outstanding Balance – £254.40

Original Reference – ***2***

 

This account defaulted on the 28 December 2009.

 

I have now stopped collections activity on the accounts for 14 days while we await further information from you regarding your intentions towards the outstanding balances.

 

Many thanks,

[obiter dictum]

Tell them to take you to court and sod off

 

Tell them you now consider the account to be statute barred and refute their opinion it is not. You will enter into no further correspondent's with Lowell

 

I was under the impression under a code of practice issued by the then OFT

 

A creditor cannot insinuate an account is not statute barred when it obviously it is

[dx100uk]

pers I'd let them willy wave and ignore them

 

 

ideally you shouldn't have sent that SB letter

 

 

simply lets them know they've found a poss mug to fleece

 

 

best way if a debt is SB'd is to simply ignore the DCA's

 

 

if they are writing to your current address

 

 

and were stupid enough to issue a court claim

then that's the time to use the SB as your absolute defence

 

 

for now all you've done is invite letter tennis.

 

 

dx

[fkofilee]

Well we have ad this discussion many a time. I would deffo say that its 6 years from the last payment.

But lets see what the site team would say.

[obiter dictum]

I agree

 

why wake a sleeping tiger

 

I would thinking about it ignore any future correspondence myself, you have told them it is statute barred, if they are foolish enough to issue a claim then that is an absolute defence

 

It is 6 years from missing the LAST contractual payment (cause of action)

[madmatt101]

I sent it to them as they sent me a letter saying that they were holding the account for 14 days for a debt management company to get in contact. I assumed if I did not respond they could say I agreed and acknowledged the debt and could issue a claim in the future.

 

I was clarifying that I made no such request and the debt was statute barred.

 

They will not be getting any other responses from me. I have ignored them for quite some time now

[dx100uk]

you cant un bar a debt by acking it

 

 

once sb'd always sb'd

not even a judge can unbar a debt.

 

 

just remember

all these silly DCA's and their fake/tame sols letters phishing attempts to find & make mugs respond.

 

 

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF

 

 

and has

 

 

NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS.

 

 

dx

[madmatt101]

yep, I agree.

 

Lowell are the only ones pursuing debts from that long ago. All the other stopped years ago.

[unclebulgaria67]

The relevant date is when you missed a payment due under the contract terms. Sometimes these companies leave it months before issuing a default notice. SB date will run from a month or two after the last payment.

[dx100uk]

the debt is not yours

not your problem end of.

 

 

dx

[madmatt101]

thanks all for your help

[Intheknow82]

This is my first time posting on this site, and whilst I agree with the majority of the advice being given there are some glaring issues with the advice being given; First the difference between a DCA and a DP - Lowell are a Debt purchaser and therefore have all the legal powers the original lender/creditor would i.e. they can take you to court, add interest as per contract etc, whereas a DCA is simply collecting on behalf of a company. Secondly - If the last payment was made whilst the account was still with O2 the date the default is registered is the date which a court would start the six year limitation period from so Lowell would be within their right to issue proceedings and gain judgment if they so desired. Thirdly - the OFT no longer exists so reference to complying with their code of conduct is wrong, the FSA and OFT merged in April 2013 to create the FCA so its their rule book which these companies should be complying with. I dislike some of the practices these companies use to try to coerce money from people however it may be worth some of you doing some homework prior to giving incorrect advice.

[DonkeyB]

This is my first time posting on this site, and whilst I agree with the majority of the advice being given there are some glaring issues with the advice being given; First the difference between a DCA and a DP - Lowell are a Debt purchaser and therefore have all the legal powers the original lender/creditor would i.e. they can take you to court, add interest as per contract etc, whereas a DCA is simply collecting on behalf of a company.

 

Secondly - If the last payment was made whilst the account was still with O2 the date the default is registered is the date which a court would start the six year limitation period from so Lowell would be within their right to issue proceedings and gain judgment if they so desired.

 

Thirdly - the OFT no longer exists so reference to complying with their code of conduct is wrong, the FSA and OFT merged in April 2013 to create the FCA so its their rule book which these companies should be complying with. I dislike some of the practices these companies use to try to coerce money from people however it may be worth some of you doing some homework prior to giving incorrect advice.

 

Absolutely do not agree with you on point 2. If you were correct, O2 could hold on to a non-paying account for five years, then issue a default notice and sell it – so legal action could be possible for 11 years after the last payment was made in your scenario, which is nonsense. And there’s a big difference between registering a default, and issuing a default notice. One is a reflection of the way you have handled your account and is reported to the credit reference agencies. Such a default can only be listed once and expires after six years. To take legal action, a default notice is only required if the contract demands it, eg. under the consumer credit act, before enforcement is possible. This could happen any time within the limitation period, but does not reset the SB clock in any way.

[dx100uk]

This is my first time posting on this site, and whilst I agree with the majority of the advice being given there are some glaring issues with the advice being given; First the difference between a DCA and a DP - Lowell are a Debt purchaser and therefore have all the legal powers the original lender/creditor would i.e. they can take you to court, add interest as per contract etc, whereas a DCA is simply collecting on behalf of a company. Secondly - If the last payment was made whilst the account was still with O2 the date the default is registered is the date which a court would start the six year limitation period from so Lowell would be within their right to issue proceedings and gain judgment if they so desired. Thirdly - the OFT no longer exists so reference to complying with their code of conduct is wrong, the FSA and OFT merged in April 2013 to create the FCA so its their rule book which these companies should be complying with. I dislike some of the practices these companies use to try to coerce money from people however it may be worth some of you doing some homework prior to giving incorrect advice

 

 

and there endeth the lesson......

 

 

dx

[DonkeyB]

I must say, intheknow82, your advice on default dates being the cause of action for SB is remarkably similar to the guff spouted by Lowell – and it’s plain wrong.

[obiter dictum]

As far as i understand it intheknow is giving false information. If a creditor holds onto an account for five years, then defaults to extend the account, that will be in breach of statutory duty.

 

There is a reason why the limitations act is set at the cause of action, not the Default date

 

What would be the reason then for the limitations act if the creditor was able to adopt that course of action??

[dx100uk]

looks like they work for MMF going by the other post just made

 

 

dx

[Intheknow82]

Wow, I only gave my understanding, reading the responses I agree that my understanding maybe incorrect (this was given to me by the FOS when I complained about a debt). With regards to the Consumer Credit Act - Mobile phone accounts do not fall under the Consumer Credit act therefore this part of the response is irrelevant.

[DonkeyB]

Wow, I only gave my understanding, reading the responses I agree that my understanding maybe incorrect (this was given to me by the FOS when I complained about a debt). With regards to the Consumer Credit Act - Mobile phone accounts do not fall under the Consumer Credit act therefore this part of the response is irrelevant.

 

Indeed, do your homework, as you suggested...

[Intheknow82]

So if I respond with a response which does conform to your understanding or way of thinking I naturally work for a DCA......brilliant!

[DonkeyB]

So if I respond with a response which does conform to your understanding or way of thinking I naturally work for a DCA......brilliant!

 

I think your response on the Motormile thread gave that away. Providing misleading information that is of benefit to debt purchasers who flout the law and flout debt collection guidelines probably just makes you dangerous.

[madmatt101]

Wow, I only gave my understanding, reading the responses I agree that my understanding maybe incorrect (this was given to me by the FOS when I complained about a debt). With regards to the Consumer Credit Act - Mobile phone accounts do not fall under the Consumer Credit act therefore this part of the response is irrelevant.

 

Who did you make a complaint about?

 

Name and shame please.

 

and by the way. The government state the following on statute barred debts

 

IHTM28384 - Liabilities: law relating to debts: statute-barred debts

If a lender allows time to pass without receiving any payment an action for recovery may become barred.

 

Under the Limitations Act 1980 the time limits are

 

in simple contracts, 6 years

in contracts under seal, 12 years.

If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or makes a part payment within the original limitation period, then the time limits start to run again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment.

 

Even though the lender may be barred from pursuing recovery, a debtor may decide to pay the debt after the expiry of the time limits. Because of this you should allow a debt which is otherwise statute-barred if the personal representatives pay the debt and you receive evidence that the payment has been made.

 

These instructions do not apply to debts in Scotland. Under Scottish law, if a lender allows time to pass without receiving any payment an action for recovery may become barred under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. (For details of this Act see Gloag and Henderson 12th edition at Chapter4.). These debts are completely extinguished and cannot be enforced. Once the prescriptive period expires the debt cannot be allowed as a deduction.

 

This comes from HMRC.

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm28384.htm