Statute Barred

das

I am really sorry if this has been answered but I have spent ages on here and cannot find an answer to my specific problem.

Mine is this:

I was contacted by a DCA who threatened to bankrupt me if I didn't pay a debt owing from 1993. I panicked and agreed to pay a monthly installment, and have been doing for the last few months.

My question is, is my debt still statute barred even though I have made some payments? Can I tell them where to get off and have any leg to stand on?

Thanks all, this forum makes brilliant reading.

das

fermi

Once a debt has become statute barred it remains that way, permanently, for ever, no matter what you later do.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1980/cukpga_19800058_en_4#pt2-pb2-l1g37

a current period of limitation may be repeatedly extended under this section by further acknowledgments or payments, but a right of action, once barred by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent acknowledgment or payment.

das

fermi wrote: »

Once a debt has become statute barred it remains that way, permanently, for ever, no matter what you later do.

That's brilliant if that's the case, but that article is not easy reading. It might as well be Chinese Mandarin to me :-(

Thanks anyway, I really appreciate it.

das

fermi

Not an 'article', that is the actual legislation/law.

This is a lighter read...

Link: Factsheet | Liability for Debts and the Limitation Act (England/Wales)

If you have started to make payments on a debt where there was more than a six-year gap then it is probably unenforceable.

McKneff

I'd give them all a laught and ask for the payments back that you made.
:rotfl::rotfl:

das

fermi wrote: »

Not an 'article', that is the actual legislation/law.

This is a lighter read...

Much easier than the legal speak, many thanks :-)

However,

"REMEMBER
If the creditor can prove you wrote to them admitting the debt, or you or anyone else owing the debt made a payment, then the six year limitation period would start running from the date you last made contact or made a payment."

But it does say to phone them for advice if I have made a payment after 6 years or more have passed. Is it worth calling them do you think?

DarkConvict

McKneff wrote: »

I'd give them all a laught and ask for the payments back that you made.
:rotfl::rotfl:

Sadly it won't work, as the debt is statute barred it is only unenforceable not that it doesn't exist. As such money paid is used to pay off the debt, it isn't actually wiped off after 6 years.

never-in-doubt

Bear in mind it is illegal/unlawful for the company to accept payments after the debt becomes Statute Barred so i'd definitely be querying their underhand and unlawful tactics and suggesting a refund of unlawful payments made to date plus a little compensation may result in you not reporting them to the OFT.....

Its worth a blag if nothing else, surely? However you should pay nothing more into the account and also check your credit file - there should be no record of this on there - nothing whatsoever and if there is, please confirm what exactly as they could have added a default when you commenced repayments (obviously another unlawful act and easy to resolve and remove)....

never-in-doubt

das wrote: »

"REMEMBER
If the creditor can prove you wrote to them admitting the debt, or you or anyone else owing the debt made a payment, then the six year limitation period would start running from the date you last made contact or made a payment."

This is in relation to the original debt and no contact. Limitation doesn't cease if after 10 years (when already well and truly statute barred) you then make contact - it is already dead and cannot be ressurrected!

So assume you owed the money from 1993 - in 1999 it became Statute Barred. In 2009 the DCA writes to you and asks for money - you make a payment. They then claim that the Limitation Period had ceased and the debt is due again because you 'made payment thus acknowledged the debt'.

This wouldn't stand because the debt was already legally statute barred back in 1999 and therefore is dead and burried forever - even if you claimed to owe it a day after the 6th year of no contact! It doesn't matter - its dead. Simple as.

Basically the DCA is trying their luck - unfortunately for them it is unlawful. :rolleyes:

Hope that makes sense and clears it up for you.

captainhaggis

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Bear in mind it is illegal/unlawful for the company to accept payments after the debt becomes Statute Barred so i'd definitely be querying their underhand and unlawful tactics and suggesting a refund of unlawful payments made to date plus a little compensation may result in you not reporting them to the OFT.....

Its worth a blag if nothing else, surely? However you should pay nothing more into the account and also check your credit file - there should be no record of this on there - nothing whatsoever and if there is, please confirm what exactly as they could have added a default when you commenced repayments (obviously another unlawful act and easy to resolve and remove)....

Absolute genius!

fermi

It's not unlawful for them to accept payments on a statute barred debt.

I wish it was, but it simply isn't.

However, the OFT does consider it:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

2.14 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:

a. we accept legally the debt exists
b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be unfair as follows:

• it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period
• if a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before the debt is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair to continue to attempt to recover the debt
• it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, for example, falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal provisions, and
• continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

(Although it should be noted that section 40 of the AoD Act 1070 has now been superseded by the CPUTR 2008. But would still be potentially harassment and an offence.)

The OFT has also imposed the requirement on a few individual firms (Mackenzie Hall for one) that they should not pursue statute barred debt. Breach of such requirements could (though I won't hold my breath with the OFT :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:) result in a fine or revocation of consumer credit license.