Statue Barred / Limitation Act

[ICO]

Could someone just confirm, I had a mountain of debts, but am sure 5 of 7 are statue barred . . .

 

Is it 6 years from the point of default ??? If you have not acknowledged it at all and there is no ccj ????

 

What happens if I defaulted in April 02 (according to info on credit file), the debt is sold to someone in 05 ??? No acknowledgement has been made. Is it statue barred in April 08 or April 11 ???

 

Also I have a ccj from 2003, no contact from creditor at all over it for 3 years !!! In 2009 will it become unenforecable unless the creitor goes back to the courts to re-apply to re-inforce it ???

 

Sorry if I sound like a stupid muppet, just trying to get facts 100% straight so I can tell DCA's exactly what I think !!!

[ICO]

Any chance a mod can help with this ???

[namethemshamethem]

If you have not acknowledged the debt within the past 6 years it becomes Statute Barred as per the Limitations Act 1980.

 

An acknowledgment would be you admitting you owe the money or making a payment to them or anyone else for the alleged debt.

 

Whilst the debt may still exist, it is unrecoverable through the courts.

 

As per the debt being sold this doesn't change anything with regards to the Limitations Act 1980.

 

The default date should be exactly the same as the account can only be issued with the default notice under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and they cannot keep re-defaulting it and putting different dates in.

 

A lot of creditors lie about the default date to Experian etc. to get you to phone up and acknowledge the debt. Or they will call the account something else like a "Hire Purchase" so you phone up and acknowledge it.

 

Be aware of these tactics!! It could cost you thousands!

 

If it is statute barred and they have a false default date hogging your file up then they must remove this and it is in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

They can be sued for damages under the DPA 1998 if their false default date causes you to pay a higher APR because of it lowering your credit score, or causes applications to be rejected.

 

As per the CCJ query, if they don't take enforcement action within 6 years of the judgment date then I am sure that becomes unenforceable too and will drop off your credit file.

[ICO]

If you have not acknowledged the debt within the past 6 years it becomes Statute Barred as per the Limitations Act 1980.

 

An acknowledgment would be you admitting you owe the money or making a payment to them or anyone else for the alleged debt.

 

Whilst the debt may still exist, it is unrecoverable through the courts.

 

As per the debt being sold this doesn't change anything with regards to the Limitations Act 1980.

 

The default date should be exactly the same as the account can only be issued with the default notice under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and they cannot keep re-defaulting it and putting different dates in.

 

A lot of creditors lie about the default date to Experian etc. to get you to phone up and acknowledge the debt. Or they will call the account something else like a "Hire Purchase" so you phone up and acknowledge it.

 

Be aware of these tactics!! It could cost you thousands!

 

If it is statute barred and they have a false default date hogging your file up then they must remove this and it is in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

They can be sued for damages under the DPA 1998 if their false default date causes you to pay a higher APR because of it lowering your credit score, or causes applications to be rejected.

 

As per the CCJ query, if they don't take enforcement action within 6 years of the judgment date then I am sure that becomes unenforceable too and will drop off your credit file.

 

TOP QUALITY INFO THANKS !!!

[Aequitas]

Found this thread while Googling.

 

Two important points:

 

1. In a straightforward case (is there ever such a thing?) once the six year period has passed an action cannot be brought. Acknowledgement after the six year period has expired does not revive the debt.

 

2. Once judgment has been obtained, the judgment is a different thing from the debt. Judgments do not expire and there is no time limit on enforcing them.

[42man]

It is not statute barred from when the default applies (some companies do not apply defaults for months !!) is it 6 years when you last made a payment or acknowledged it either in writing or on a telephone recording...

[ODC]

I have several letters from Crapbot stating just this. Openly abmitting last payment was made more than 6 years ago but telling me that the 6 yrs doesnt start until the company issued a default. Total Bollocks of course.

[Kraken1]

2. Once judgment has been obtained, the judgment is a different thing from the debt. Judgments do not expire and there is no time limit on enforcing them.

 

Although enforcement by a warrant of execution requires the court's permission after six years. They don't expire per-se, but the claimant must persuade a court that it should be enforced.

 

Doesn't apply, as far as I know to non-execution type enforcement, for eg a garneshee order as this is an order made by the court at the time, not an order which then needs enforcing, if that makes sense.

 

Regarding acknowledging the debt, this must be in writing or by making a payment.

[Aequitas]

Total Bollocks of course.

 

Are you able to quote any authority that supports that view?

 

I am no expert on the Limitation Act. I am (or rather was) a conveyancer and questions under the Limitation Act do not often arise in property matters except in relation to adverse possession. Indeed, I would say that those who think they understand the Limitation Act in all its ramifications (whether lawyers or not) are probably deluding themselves.

 

Without having done any research on the point and therefore at risk of showing I am firmly in the ranks of the deluded, I pose the following question:

 

If it is the case that a creditor cannot start proceedings until he has served notice on the debtor and the notice has expired (whether or not the notice is required by contract or statute) is it not also the case that the "cause of action" does not arise until the notice has been served and expired?

 

Further, a statement that a debt is not payable unless acknowledged or part payment of it is made within six years cannot be correct in every case. If the contract provides for payment to be made in, say, seven years time, failure to acknowledge the debt or make a part payment does not prevent an action being brought in the period of six years starting on the expiry of the seven years.

 

And again, if the contract provides that payment is not due until demand is made, the six year period does not start until demand is made.

[Kraken1]

Interesting queries.

 

If it is the case that a creditor cannot start proceedings until he has served notice on the debtor and the notice has expired (whether or not the notice is required by contract or statute) is it not also the case that the "cause of action" does not arise until the notice has been served and expired?

 

I would interpret the default notice as simply that; notice that there has been a default and that therefore the cause of action has arisen. Whether or not there is notice of this does not alter whether there has been a cause of action. The cause of action is when the term(s) of the contract have been breached. The default notice is an information document and a procedural step necessary before the breach can be acted on.

 

Further, a statement that a debt is not payable unless acknowledged or part payment of it is made within six years cannot be correct in every case. If the contract provides for payment to be made in, say, seven years time, failure to acknowledge the debt or make a part payment does not prevent an action being brought in the period of six years starting on the expiry of the seven years.

 

I think that this would be the case as the cause of action is a breach of contract. There is no cause of action until the contract has been breached. This said I'm not aware of many contract draftsmen that would frame a contract in this way. The nearest equivalent is perhaps the student loans scheme and in this case the loan becomes due unless you defer it, but then this is still complying with the terms of the contract and hence no breach.

 

And again, if the contract provides that payment is not due until demand is made, the six year period does not start until demand is made.

 

I would clarify that to say that the limitation period does not start until there has been a breach of contract.

[Aequitas]

I would interpret the default notice as simply that; notice that there has been a default and that therefore the cause of action has arisen. Whether or not there is notice of this does not alter whether there has been a cause of action. The cause of action is when the term(s) of the contract have been breached. The default notice is an information document and a procedural step necessary before the breach can be acted on.

 

Interesting point of view.

 

Does anyone know if the point has been litigated?

[noomill060]

The LA is intended to prevent old, stale claims from reappearing. The logic is that if a creditor cant be bothered to recover a debt within 6 years, he must lose the right to do so.

 

You have to draw a line somewhere, though s.132 provides some exclusions, they are really just to take account of mistakes, concealment and fraud.

[noomill060]

If the Act is silent on default notices, it seems reasonable that it has nothing to say about them.