Statute barred debts and the Limitation Acts

langold

hi i got a debt collectors letter today from a company about a debt that was from when we had id fraud the company tmobile have written it off but it looks like the last debt collector mackenzie hall has sold it on is their a letter for this please

Holliepops

fermi wrote: »

Where a debt collector FALSELY claims that the 5 or 6 years runs from the date a default was issued.

Hello! Sorry to post on such an old thread, but Google seems to direct us to funny places! I have a slight query regarding when a debt is considered to start, and therefor, when it would become statute-barred.

I got myself into quite a pickle when I was made homeless at 17, I'd previously been quite sheltered and looked after and then when my grandfather died I was suddenly in a council house by myself living on £40 a week. I had no idea how to manage money and got myself into a lot of debt - mostly utilities.

Using an example of my debt to United Utilities, I believe the first bill I defaulted on was in late 2006 or perhaps early 2007 - would this be counted as when the 6 year timer would start ticking, or would it be when I vacated the property in 2008, with a higher debt to them?

I'm a tad confused! Working out whether things are, or when they will become statute-barred is baffling!

Hollie

Willing2Learn

Sorry fermi (or Tixy), just wondering, and this may be relevant to Shaun.

Can a telephone conversation between creditor and debtor, recorded by the creditor or assigned DCA, be considered evidence of acknowledgement of the debt? What about verbal acknowledgement during a home visit? Is it only written acknowledgement?

Tixy

Only written acknowledgment counts (a payment by any method counts even by phone etc)

Though I wouldn't recommend someone phoning their creditor every day to taunt them that they admit its their debt but won't put it in writing!

fermi

Only written signed acknowledgement.

The Act is very specific and clear on that point stating that:

"To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it."

And in a section prior to that, that it is only acknowledgement by the person liable for the claim (i.e.where the "person making it" owes the debt) that renews the 6 years period.

Tixy

fermi wrote: »

And in a section prior to that, that it is only acknowledgement by the person liable for the claim (i.e.where the "person making it" owes the debt) that renews the 6 years period.

So someone's mother writing in response to a creditor to say "terry knows he owes you this money but he is away at uni at the moment and doesn't have any spare money" doesn't count.:)

However there are some cases where there have been real issues when a well meaning parent answers a phone call from a creditor and agrees to make a small payment towards the debt.

fermi

Tixy wrote: »

However there are some cases where there have been real issues when a well meaning parent answers a phone call from a creditor and agrees to make a small payment towards the debt.

True. Part payment only restarts the clock if made by the debtor or their "agent". Whether a relative can be said to be one when not acting with express permission, is debatable but I would say not in my opinion. Difficult though....

Willing2Learn

fermi wrote: »

Part payment only restarts the clock if made by the debtor or their "agent". Whether a relative can be said to be one when not acting with express permission, is debatable but I would say not in my opinion. Difficult though....

It's a while since I have read the Limitation Act. Having just done so, it would be my understanding that a mother making a payment, as described in the example given by Tixy, would be considered an agent. I would have to check case law on this though before I could say whether my assertion is correct.

legislation.gov.uk - Limitation Act 1980 Just in case anyone else is interested too

fermi

Someone can only act as your agent if you have given them permission to act as such. Just because they are a relative, does not mean that consent can be presumed.

Tixy

fermi wrote: »

Someone can only act as your agent if you have given them permission to act as such. Just because they are a relative, does not mean that consent can be presumed.

I'd agree it shouldn't - but it would likely be a fight with the debt collector in this sort of case.
I know there have been posts along these lines but not sure if any were ever resolved / or at least if the resolutions was posted. I'd guess a stale mate and perpetual selling on of the debt to lower and lower life forms.

I'd certainly want to fight it if it were me, including going as far as to fight a CCJ if necessary. Assuming the pesky well meaning relative understood and was on board with explaining what actually happend.