Jump to content


Cruet1

Drydens/Erudio claimform - old slc loan - is it sb'd

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi BillyWilder, hope you don't mind me jumping into your thread here, but I was about to ask the almost exact same question so I'd be very interested to see what advice you get. There's lots of SLC threads here but none ever end in a satisfactory answer.

 

(I don't need to start my own thread with this, as it's exactly the same question I'm asking as Billy). But to briefly expand for info - I've been chased by Erudio on a 3 mortgage-style pre'98 loans since the start of this year. I sent SLC a SAR and a Moses-style stone tablet of 26years info wapped onto my doormat. Reading through it all, it seems the last contact I had with SLC was when I tried to defer in Feb 2014 and they said no, because it's now owned by Erudio. I left it at that.

 

So, DOES the Statute Barred date calculate from my last official acceptance for deferment from SLC (IE/ around March 2013) or my last telephone request for deferment, denied by SLC, Feb 2014; or did my writing to Erudio saying I think the debt to be SB in March this year reset the clock anyway?

 

It seems impossible to get a definitive answer around these here parts!!! 

 

(edited to say: I've been below the threshold for repayment since 2007, thus always deferred, but stopped all contact around Feb 2013, save for the request denied in Feb 2014 for new deferment forms).

Edited by Cruet1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruet1, it's always best to ask the same question about the same firm on your own thread please. It never works when advice for two people gets tangled up and just leads to confusion.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's ok Honeybee, I'll watch thanks. I just hope there can finally be an answer to the SB deferment question. Ta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not ok

Create your own topic thankyou

its not as clear cut as you perceive

 

Dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

Ok clear now not sb'd

thank you

 

Please complete this

 

Why not SB tho? I thought SB was 6 years after last contact? Billy says Feb 2013, so by my remedial math that means it should've become statute barred March 2019? Same as me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Section 30 Limitation Act 1980

30 Formal provisions as to acknowledgments and part payments.

(1)To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it.

(2)For the purposes of section 29, any acknowledgment or payment—

(a)may be made by the agent of the person by whom it is required to be made under that section; and

(b)shall be made to the person, or to an agent of the person, whose title or claim is being acknowledged or, as the case may be, in respect of whose claim the payment is being made.”

 

For a debt to be statute barred under the 1980 Act, no payment and no express acknowledgement of the debt for a period of 6 years. (this limitation period does not apply to mortgages).

 

Dorytime

 

The 6 year limitation period begins to run from the date that the creditor's cause of action became known to him.

 

Dorytime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone in the position of having had SLC refuse to process deferment, should have proof of this.  If they refused in writing and the letter does not state how to defer with new debt owner, then yes it could be argued that SB runs from 2013 when previously deferred.

 

BUT presumably when the debts were sold to Erudio by SLC, Erudio or SLO or both wrote to all debtors stating what the revised process was for deferment ?  If they did so and a mistake was made by debtors contacting SLC, rather than Erudio, then they could argue that SB runs from 2014, when the anniversary for deferment was due.

 

So the answer is not clear. Open to argument, when the 6 years runs from, because of the sale of the debt and the communication issues confirming revised deferment process.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does that leave all of the threads here? If we respond to PAP's with your SB template are we risking very expensively testing a precedent in court?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Cruet's case, the deferment was not accepted as the account had been assigned, so in 2014 there was no valid deferment/acknowledgment by Cruet and therefore the matter is statute barred for Cruet.

 

In Billywilder's case, his last deferment was in 2014, this is an acknowledgement of the debt for the purpose of the 6 year limitation period and extends the limitation period within the meaning of s.30 of the 1980 Act (posted above), and therefore, unfortunately, Billywilder's debt is not statute barred.

 

Dorytime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dorytime said:

In Cruet's case, the deferment was not accepted as the account had been assigned, so in 2014 there was no valid deferment/acknowledgment by Cruet and therefore the matter is statute barred for Cruet.

 

In Billywilder's case, his last deferment was in 2014, this is an acknowledgement of the debt for the purpose of the 6 year limitation period and extends the limitation period within the meaning of s.30 of the 1980 Act (posted above), and therefore, unfortunately, Billywilder's debt is not statute barred.

 

Dorytime

Cheers Dorytime, exactly the 100% clearcut advice I've been reading a hundred threads on here.

 

Cheers fella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the date of the claimform?


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Bradford and Bingley plc v Rashid (FC) [2006] UKHL 37, the House considered the limitation period under the 1980 Act and ss.29 & 30 and held that a debtor’s acknowledgment of the debt claimed means that the debt is not statute barred.

Here are a few relevant paragraphs on the point from this key authority:

 

[21] I have no difficulty in regarding the letter of 26 September 2001 as an acknowledgment of the appellants' claim within the meaning of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. In Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977] 1 WLR 565, 575E-F Kerr J said that the debtor can only be held to have acknowledged the claim if he has in effect admitted his legal liability to pay that which the plaintiff seeks to recover. But his acknowledgment need not identify the amount of the debt.

 

[44]A debtor's written acknowledgment of his debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim starts time running afresh under the Limitation Act 1980 (the 1980 Act). Such is the effect of sections 29 (5) and 30.

 

[79]The first issue is whether either or both of the Advice Centre's letters of 26th September and 4th October 2001, if admissible in evidence, constituted an acknowledgement of the appellant bank's claim for the purposes of sections 29(5) and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980. On this issue, I agree with Lord Brown's reasoning and conclusions in paragraphs 53-60. The letters acknowledged the existence of "the outstanding balance, owed to you" or "the outstanding amount". The appellant bank is entitled to prove the unstated quantum of that admitted balance or amount by any admissible means, including oral evidence, in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision in Dungate v. Dungate [1965] 1 WLR 1477. By the first letter, written in response to the appellant bank's insistence on proposals for repayment, Mr Rashid was simply requesting time to "start to repay" the outstanding balance. By the second letter, written in response to the bank's reiteration of its insistence and its indication that it would consider writing off a substantial sum if Mr Rashid raised a lump sum payment "in full and final settlement", Mr Rashid was simply offering "approximately £500 towards the outstanding amount as a final settlement". In each case, he was clearly acknowledging the outstanding debt without question.

 

The above authority on this point clarifies the issue on the meaning of statute barred raised here by Billywilder and Cruet, and for any consumer for that matter.

 

Dorytime

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall be editing, Cruet. Let's keep this civil please.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Cruet,

 

Let's just keep things on topic please, sometimes it is best to keep your opinion....about anyone and anything to yourself.

 

I think you would prove your humanity if you gave dx an apology, we are all strangers here, we don't know each other or whether any of us suffer from any illness or not, but the one thing we do know is that we are all here looking for help, support and advice or to give the same to our fellow people.

 

Dorytime

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...