charging order - student loan

[sequenci]

As this debt is technically 9/10 years old and I have not had contact with them could it be statute barred?

Would it best to S.A.R them in the first instance?

I will post the docs tonight so you can see them.

 

Any advice very much appreciated.

 

It sounds very likely that the debt is statute barred so long as there has been no written acknowledgement on your part, the 2 great things baout the limitation act is that once a debt is statute barred it always will be, also the onus is on the creditor to prove to you that the debt isn't statute barred.

 

both a CCA request and a SAR would be well worth using first and foremost

[sequenci]

Does this also mean that if a person has had a student loan and say, has an income that remains under the threshold for deductions for over 6 years.... that if no written acknowledgement is made by the student and there are also no attempts to collect during this time..... that the account is statute-barred then as well ?

 

Good question my good man,

 

The Limitation Act would prevent the "remedy but not the right". Since the change in student loans in 1998 any monies owing would be taken straight from source once you're above the threshold. This means that although court action couldn't be brought against the debt, the loan company would still automatically get their money from source anyway, in essence they still have the right to do this. It's a similar story with things like benefit overpayments, although they may be stat barred, if someone goes back on the benefit, the money owing could be taken from it.

 

edit: i'm sure this is why for old-style student loans please have to "defer" the loans by writing in, hence a written acknowledgement which starts time running afresh.

[sequenci]

I don't think so, but remember to put at the top of any letter that you send I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY - maybe somebody more knowledgable here will reinforce / advise...

 

absolutely. so long as you do not admit liability for the debt.

 

it is worth knowing that once a debt is statute barred it always will be, if you've gone past the 6 years then a written admission wouldn't start time running afresh anyway. if you're not sure on the time, certainly do not admit liability!

[sequenci]

Since this is a charging order as opposed to attachment of earnings, then there must be a CCJ out there somewhere which means that the debt is proven by default which would also mean it is not affected by statute of limitations.

If there is a CCJ and it was applied for after the 6 year limitation then I would argue for a set aside on those grounds and take it from there.

 

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can correct me (I hope so) but if not, you have a fight on your hands although you are in good hands here to help you through it.

 

this is what i've been getting at.

 

i would imagine the judgment was only granted recently, a set aside would be allowed by the judge.

[sequenci]

ok, this is what needs to be done on this one.

 

1) find out when the original court judgment was. if need be you can take a look on RTL Home

 

2) if the judgment was granted six years after any previous acknowledgement or payment then you should get a set aside application in on the n244 form, the fee is £65 - if you need help doing this get back to us.

 

3) if there isn't 6 years then we can look at strategies to deal with charging orders, get back in touch and let us know.

[sequenci]

let us know the outcome of the searches, one way or another i'm confident we can get your query sorted pretty quickl

[sequenci]

It looks like the CCJ was obtained in March 2001, this would mean that the debt wouldn't be statute barred. You should certainly be looking to object about the charging order being made final and cite the fact they are trying to enforce the judgment over six years from when it was made.

 

Can you remember receiving a claim form back in 2001?

[sequenci]

Hi Sequenci

I didnt receive anything. I thought it would be statute barred as I have not been intouch for 6+ years?

 

HJ

 

The Limitation Act doesn't apply as there is a CCJ. The key argument is the length of time from when the CCJ was obtained and when they are looking to enforce. It is over 6 years which is unreasonable and this is the main argument that should be used for the court.

 

Did you ever receive notice of the original judgment back in 2001?

[sequenci]

No -never received anything.

 

HJ

 

You *may* be able to set the original judgment aside; this would remove the judgment. It is a discretionary ground and you would have to show the court that you applied as soon as was practicable for you to do so. A set aside would put you then into a position that the debt would be statute barred. Have a look:

 

National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 25 Liability For Debts And The Limitation Act