Aaaaargh My mums done something stupid!

tyllwyd

But this situation isn't what the Limitation Act is for - it's intended to be so that debts can't suddenly resurface with no warning after years with no communication. Not so that - for example - you can throw away letters for six years and then refuse to pay.

I have no idea of the rights & wrongs of the original debt, but surely the OP is on morally dodgy ground by trying to use the Limitation Act to avoid paying?

fermi

fatbelly wrote: »

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.

Difficult to say really?

Even if the mother could technically be covered by the term "agent", to be effective they would have to be acting with permission/authority from the OP for that to be valid. Otherwise they would (in law) have no status greater than any other random person who may happen to make payment on the account.

So for arguments case, if a SB defence would still be valid if someone not liable or acting for a liable party makes a payment, then where does the burden of proof lie in this?

- Would it be up to the DCA to prove that they acted with authority?
- Or the OP that they did not?
- Or simply taken "on the balance of probabilities" given the connection between the parties?

Then you have to add in the prospect of the usual "judge lottery" with ill-informed DJs.

DVardysShadow

fatbelly wrote: »

... 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.

There are 2 things to be taken into account, the law and the evidence.

If this went to court with a statute barred defence once the 6 years are up and the OP claimed that Mother paid on her own initiative, then as a point of law, the case would be won quite clearly.

But in terms of evidence, the difficulty is proving that OP did not pay and that it was Mother, acting on her own initiative. And also the question arises as to where the burden of proof lies? With the DCA to prove that Mother was acting as agent, or with OP to prove she was not?