Solicitors Letter

Premier_2

fermi wrote: »

Not at all.

There are a surprising number of cases where a debt collector resurrects an old debt that not been chased and the debtor has not heard anything about for well over 6 years.

Some are 15 years old or more!

In such a case, that statement is very very relevant.

Remember, that is a template letter, so is designed to cover a range of circumstances.

Please don't shoot the messenger! I was simply quoting from the the link you provided.

What difference does it make if the matter is 7 years old or 15 years old?

fermi

Premier wrote: »

Please don't shoot the messenger! I was simply quoting from the the link you provided.

Not shooting anyone. Honest.

You queried whether the quoted portion was pointless or not?

It's not pointless, but it must be understood correctly in context. In that it simply refers to when (in the OFT's opinion) it is unfair to pursue payment. It has nothing to do with whether the debt is statute barred or not.

Premier_2

fermi wrote: »

Not shooting anyone. Honest.

You queried whether the quoted portion was pointless or not?

It's not pointless, but it must be understood correctly in context. In that it simply refers to when (in the OFT's opinion) it is unfair to pursue payment. It has nothing to do with whether the debt is statute barred or not.

Whether a debt is statute barred or not, it is still a debt. All it means when it is satute barred is that a creditor cannot enforce it's collection.
... as I explained in my post #4

So I'm still not sure where fairness comes into the equation.

Anyway, we don't know whether the debt is statute barred anyway. We need a lot more info from the OP. I asked for some of that in my post#4 too.

It may also be useful to better understand the cause of the debt so that we can better establish the date it accrued. The OP says the tenancy went on, so I somehow suspect it wasn't for debt accrued in 2002.

Or of course, the OP can spend £70-£200 per hour going to a solicitor (which they may have to ultimately do if they don't have insurance to cover such eventuality), as suggested and reiterated by kermitfrog and confirmed by yourself, but at least it doesn't cost anything to solicit responses here.

fermi

Premier wrote: »

So I'm still not sure where fairness comes into the equation.

If you don't know why you quoted it in the first place, then......?

Premier wrote: »

Anyway, we don't know whether the debt is statute barred anyway. We need a lot more info from the OP. I asked for some of that in my post#4 too.

It may also be useful to better understand the cause of the debt so that we can better establish the date it accrued. The OP says the tenancy went on, so I somehow suspect it wasn't for debt accrued in 2002.

Or of course, the OP can spend £70-£200 per hour going to a solicitor (which they may have to ultimately do if they don't have insurance to cover such eventuality), as suggested and reiterated by kermitfrog and confirmed by yourself, but at least it doesn't cost anything to solicit responses here.

Agreed.

Premier_2

fermi wrote: »

If you don't know why you quoted it in the first place, then......?

Because you asked the question!!! :cool:

I was simply pointing you back to the link you had already provided to see the answer to the question you had asked me.

fermi

Premier wrote: »

Because you asked the question!!! :cool:

I was simply pointing you back to the link you had already provided to see the answer to the question you had asked me.

But as explained in #7 #9 & #13, what you quoted is not at all relevant to the question asked.

Premier_2

As I said, please don't shoot the messenger.

I simply quoted in response to your question the detail held within the link you provided.

There is nothing in that link that specifies when or when not that applies.

I suggest you contact the nationaldebtline and get them to revise their misleading advice if you think it is wrong, or doesn't claerly explain the situations it does or does not apply

I'm not sure how all this helps the OP in their query at all. In fact, I see the OP hasn't been back since posting the query 3 days ago and until more information is provided, we really can't progress can we.

fermi

Premier wrote: »

There is nothing in that link that specifies when or when not that applies.

It doesn't need to.

Premier wrote: »

I suggest you contact the nationaldebtline and get them to revise their misleading advice if you think it is wrong, or doesn't claerly explain the situations it does or does not apply

There is nothing misleading, wrong or unclear about it at all.

It simply states that the OFT considers it unfair to pursue a debt when the debtor has not heard nothing from the creditor for 6 years or more. It says nothing regarding the legal status of the debt if it came to court action.

For some odd and unexplained reason, you seem to be implying that this means that a debt cannot be statute barred when the above situation is not the case.

It most certainly can, as explained previously.

Premier_2

fermi wrote: »

...There is nothing misleading, wrong or unclear about it at all.

It simply states that the OFT considers it unfair to pursue a debt when the debtor has not heard nothing from the creditor for 6 years or more....

Exactly. I hope that answers the question you posed as to why it would depend on whether the landlord has been trying to recover the money in the meantime.

i.e. If he hasn't it would be unfair for the debtor to pursue the creditor in the circumstances, as per the OFT guidance.

Simples. :cool:

fermi

Premier wrote: »

Exactly. I hope that answers the question you posed as to why it would depend on whether the landlord has been trying to recover the money in the meantime.

i.e. If he hasn't it would be unfair for the debtor to pursue the creditor in the circumstances, as per the OFT guidance.

No. That is not what you said in your post.

You posted.

Premier wrote: »

It could be the debt is statute barred. This would depend on whether the landlord has been trying to recover the money in the meantime.

That claims that whether the debt is statute barred or not, depends on whether the landlord has made any attempts to recover the debt.

As explained, whether the debt is legally statute barred and whether it is unfair to pursue it are two distinct and separate issues.

Whether it could be considered unfair to pursue for payment now does depend on whether they have tried in the last 6 years.

Whether the debt is legally statute barred does not.