statute-barred or not??

debbi1965

if a company sells a debt that is well over 6 yrs old, can the new company treat it as a current debt and take you to court?
Or is it statute-barred?

fermi

In England/Wales a debt will be "Statute Barred" if there has been no acknowledgement of the debt by you making a payment or in writing within any period of six years.

Once they debt becomes statute barred it remains so. The sale of the debt has no effect on the legal enforceability of the debt. The debt is still owed, but it's statute barred status is a full defence to any court action.

debbi1965

thanks Fermi

What if they have already taken it to court, and you sent in the wrong form, N245 instead of N244 ??

fermi

debbi1965 wrote: »

What if they have already taken it to court, and you sent in the wrong form, N245 instead of N244 ??

You should have really defended the claim at the time on the basis that the debt was statute barred, putting the burden of proof on the creditor to show that it is not if they can.

A N245 is for varying an order or suspending a warrant of execution on an order that has already been made I think?. I presume that you did not defend the claim then?

You could well have grounds to set aside the order which would as you say be a N244. Costs £75 through.

Have a look at the valid grounds that you can use.

How to set aside a judgment in the County Court

If you are going to consider doing that, then it is normally best to get some advice from one of the organisations here: Non-profit Debt Counsellors' List

ThePoshCat_2

I would also add that Judges go out of their way to help a litigant in person so send the right form with a covering letter and it's almost a case of the more innocent you seem the more the Judge will bend over backwards to help you.

markelock

let's not forget the OP has moved in this time. Can you be sure that within that 6 year period you have not had mail sent to you at the address they held on file?

fermi

markelock wrote: »

let's not forget the OP has moved in this time. Can you be sure that within that 6 year period you have not had mail sent to you at the address they held on file?

Under the Limitation Act 1980, a fresh accrual of the "right of action" that restarts the limitation period can ONLY take place with an acknowledgement in writing or by a payment by the debtor.

Correspondence from the creditor does not restart the limitation period.

Debt_Free_Chick

fermi wrote: »

Under the Limitation Act 1980, a fresh accrual of the "right of action" that restarts the limitation period can ONLY take place with an acknowledgement in writing or by a payment by the debtor.

Correspondence from the creditor does not restart the limitation period.

I fully agree, but doesn't it rather depend on the content of the "correspondence"

I think we need the full story here ......

The OP might be of the opinion that the debt has not been acknowledged, but we can't be sure unless we know the content of the correspondence - they might have "slipped up"

fermi

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

I fully agree, but doesn't it rather depend on the content of the "correspondence"

My post above was addressing the issue of correspondence from the creditor only. The creditor writing to you at any address does not start the clock ticking for the limitation period again, no matter the content of the correspondence.

If the OP has themselves acknowledged the debt in writing or by making a payment before the six years was up, then of course the limitation period will restart and the debt will not be statute barred.

We don't know for certain that the OP hasn't done that, but the post here seems to suggest that they have not.

debbi1965 wrote: »

It seems they have sold the debt to another company who issued court proceedings - (still more than 6 yrs after last contact with A&L).

We can only give the OP the facts and the law. In the absence of further information it's then up to them to work out if/how that applies to their situation, or to take some professional/legal advice.

markelock

my point is that if the creditor chases the debt, simply moving away and ignoring the debt should not be sufficient to clear the balance?

fermi

markelock wrote: »

my point is that if the creditor chases the debt, simply moving away and ignoring the debt should not be sufficient to clear the balance?

It isn't.

There is nothing to prevent the creditor obtaining a County Court Judgement before the six years is up, even if the debtor has moved without leaving a forwarding address or does not respond. In that case they would obtain a judgement by default.

If that CCJ had been obtained within the 6 years, then the Limitation Act would not then apply.

If the creditor has not bothered to do this to prevent the Limitations Act applying to the debt, then it can become statute barred.

EDIT: Anyway, the Limitations Act does not "clear the debt". It simply sets out a time limit within which the creditor can take legal action to recover the debt.