Aaaaargh My mums done something stupid!

magpiecottage

There would seem to be grounds for you to make a complaint against the DCA for speaking to your Mum about a debt that was not hers.

fatbelly

Limitation Act 1980

section 31(7)A payment made in respect of any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim shall bind all persons liable in respect of the debt or claim.

It doesn't matter who makes the payment. Sorry.

DarkConvict

But if the above is true, what is to stop a debt collector paying £1 every 5 years into a debt to keep it active?

It really should come from the account holder who is legally responsible for it.

fermi

fatbelly wrote: »

Limitation Act 1980

section 31(7)A payment made in respect of any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim shall bind all persons liable in respect of the debt or claim.

It doesn't matter who makes the payment. Sorry.

Incorrect, I think.

s28(5) requires that any fresh accrual of the right of action must be made by the person liable.

(5)Subject to subsection (6) below, where any right of action has accrued to recover—

(a)any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim; or
(b)any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate;

and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or payment.

fermi

However, s30 does allow this to be done on their behalf by an "agent".

(2)For the purposes of section 29, any acknowledgment or payment—

(a)may be sent by the agent of the person by whom it is required to be made under that section; and(b)shall be made to the person, or to an agent of the person, whose title or claim is being acknowledged or, as the case may be, in respect of whose claim the payment is being made.

fermi

I think the part fatbelly has posted is talking about things such as joint account.

i.e. if one person liable acknowledges via a payment, it binds any other joint signatories as well.

consultant31

vaporate wrote: »

Worst case scenario, I would let your mum pay it. Her fault.

Nice! Perhaps her Mum thought she was helping.

fatbelly

I take your point.

So does this hinge on whether the op's mum can be viewed as an 'agent' of the op?

It would be interesting to know what the dca actually wrote to the op's mum. There may be a case for a complaint to the FOS. (edit - I just read post #11. Maybe there isn't)

But if this went to court now, I'm not sure how a judge would view a 'statute barred' defence. I honestly think it could go either way.

Sorry, I mean if it went to court in a year or so. It's not statute barred yet anyway.

McKneff

Hold on peeps, the OP said she was deliberately trying to avoid this debt
and youre all helping her out.
Unbeleivable....................

fatbelly

McKneff wrote: »

Hold on peeps, the OP said she was deliberately trying to avoid this debt
and youre all helping her out.
Unbeleivable....................

We're having an interesting discussion on the Limitation Act