HELP ME - STUDENT LOANS - is it statute barred?

claireds

I would like to point out that I DIDNT ignore the debt. I tried on three occasions to chnage my address and it was never registered. I am saying that after 10 years of nothing from them, can it be statute barred. The debt advisory people say it can.

Also the loans come under the OLD student loans as they are pre 98 so can be statute barred.

What I am trying to establish is that they say they is something in the legislation saying that if they think I have deliberately witheld information from them, it cant be statute barred. I didnt, i tried to change my address, but cant prove it. But they cant prove I didnt either.

claireds

woodbine wrote: »

its a govt debt and cant be statute barred

The new ones cant, the old ones pre 98 can

fermi

claireds wrote: »

What I am trying to establish is that they say they is something in the legislation saying that if they think I have deliberately witheld information from them, it cant be statute barred. I didnt, i tried to change my address, but cant prove it. But they cant prove I didnt either.

They are talking twaddle in the hope that you will believe it. :rolleyes:

Quite a common tactic used by the SLC.

There are provisions in the legislation that allow the start of the 6 year period to be delayed if you deliberately conceal information that effects the creditor's ability to take legal action.

However, even that is only effective until the time when a creditor discovers that or can reasonably be expected to have done. Then the 6 year period starts running whether they like it or not.

Plus, as said, not knowing your address was not something that effected their right to take legal action before this became statute barred.

So they are talking nonsense on two counts.

claireds

fermi wrote: »

They are talking twaddle in the hope that you will believe it. :rolleyes:

Quite a common tactic used by the SLC.

There are provisions in the legislation that allow the start of the 6 year period to be delayed if you deliberately conceal information that effects the creditor's ability to take legal action.

However, even that is only effective until the time when a creditor discovers that or can reasonably be expected to have done. Then the 6 year period starts running whether they like it or not.

Plus, as said, not knowing your address was not something that effected their right to take legal action before this became statute barred.

So they are talking nonsense on two counts.

Well lets hope so. The lady from the debt advisory did say that there was something not quite right in their tactics and I shouldnt aknowledge them until I have gotten further legal advice, which i will do on monday.
They didnt send me any proof of the debt or anything else that was requested in the statute barred letter.
They could have easily gotten hold of me in the past 10 years, they just never bothered.

fatbelly

fermi wrote: »

There are provisions in the legislation that allow the start of the 6 year period to be delayed if you deliberately conceal information that effects the creditor's ability to take legal action.

This often gets mentioned by creditors but rarely gets mentioned in court cases because it is so difficult for the creditor to prove.

In Paragon v Thakerar 1999 the judge said:

'The question is not whether the Plaintiffs should have discovered the fraud sooner; but whether they could with reasonable diligence have done so. The burden of proof is on them. They must establish that they could not have discovered the fraud without exceptional measures which they could not reasonably have been expected to take'

The example given on a training course I attended where it might succeed is where a debtor hacked in to the creditor's computer so as to deliberately conceal the debt. Even so, they would have to demonstrate that reasonable and routine cross-checking would not have revealed the fraud.

The provision is nowhere near applicable in the op's case.

claireds

Thanks for all the info :beer:

Now I just need to find out what kind of letter I have to send back to them, as I guess they get those kinds of letters all the time.:think:

_Andy_

Repaying your debts is so last season, it would appear.

claireds

OK so now the can of worms is getting more wriggly.
The consumer credit counselling service, private solicitors dealing with litigation and the national debt line all say this is statute barred and that not habing someones address is not reason enough not to pursue the debt.
However, the financial ombudsman wants to help me wiith this if they can, although I have heard rumours on here that the Honours student Loans company, are not FSA registered. I have also read on here how much trouble other people have had with this company, and how nasty they can be. (my loan was origianally with the student loans company in glasgow and looks like this debt has been sold to the HSL)
I was also told my a solicitor that they can not pursue me for this debt unless they have a court order as its over 6 years.
How do I find out if they have one? Will it be on a credit report? I know they dont have to have the correct address to do this. It can be one of my old ones.

bluenose_11

this morning recieved letter from bcw group ?.... saying that that are commencing proceedings on behalf of student loans plc.....they tell me that they are going to arrest monies in my bank account....
ARRESTMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT
the loan was before 1998...i have made no contact with student loans or this company ....can they do this..... :eek: thanks