Statute barred and partners

GeorgeUK

Was just thinking about how some people keep their debts seperate, even when married and some combine their debts to get them paid off quicker.

Something occurred to me: [Edit: not sure of legalities so been advised to edit this post]
If Fred and Wilma pool their resources and debts and are paying off their bills every month, after 6 years would a debt be statute barred if Fred had been paying a debt that was not joint, but soley Wilma's? Wilma would not have made any payments for 6 years...
Not sure why that popped in to my head - just wondered if this was correct and if there are safeguards in place to stop banks falling in to this. Not sure if DCA's would have the same safeguards though.

GeorgeUK

Ok then, so no flintstones fans here.

I'm pretty sure the above is technically correct but i guess no-one's come across this scenario yet.

shinyhead

YABBADABBADOO!!Seriously though George, My first thought is that while payments have been made to the account then the clock never gets the chance to start until after the last one that's made. So while Fred is paying off Wilma's debt then it will never get to be statute barred. I think I'm going to go off-forum to do some research as I could be wrong (I usually am!) but I always thought that to be SB then neither payment nor acknowledement in writing has to have occurred in the 5/6 year time limit.

milliemonster

I think I agree with shinyhead on this one, I guess that the creditors don't really give a damn who pays the debt as long as it is paid and only when it stops being paid will the clock start ticking

GeorgeUK - you need to get out more!!! (says me who has been on MSE ALLDAY!!!!)

shinyhead

i took a look at this factsheet and I can now see where your'e coming from George:

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=25_liability_for_debts_and_the_limitation_act

BUT, as payments have been made wouldn't it be difficult to prove should it get legal?? Even if Wilma stands up in the county court and says she's never made any of these payments, then Fred stands up and confirms this, wouldn't the judge just accept that as payments have been made the SB doesn't apply?

BUT if only Wilma attends court and swears she not only has not made any payments and also has no idea where the payments have been coming from then how's it likely to stand then, particularly if payment details show that the account they're coming fromhas nothing to do with her?

We ALL need to get out more, we probably can't afford it though!!

GeorgeUK

I'm not sure it matters if you know where the payments are coming from though.

As far as i can see it is if you or anyone else owing the debt makes a payment. If someone else has made payments but do not owe the debt, then i think it would be SB. Otherwise there would be nothing to stop a DCA making a £0.01 payment to a 5 year old debt to restart the clock.

I swear i was working when this occurred to me.
I'd laugh my head off if this actually happened to a DCA though.