statute barred?

fermi

king100 wrote: »

So what you are saying contridicts itself.

Not in the slightest.

You don't seem to understand what something being statute barred actually fundamentally means? :wall:

It means that court action is barred. Legally it means nothing else.

The Limitation Act is all about time limits on legal action. Not any other form of recovery.

A post 1998 loan can be statute barred. That prevents legal action to recover it. It doesn't however stop SLC recovering it through wages.

A similar thing applies to benefit overpayments. They can be statute barred, but once again that only prevents legal action through the courts. They can still be recovered by deduction from any benefit entitlement.

Just_Plain_Jane

king100 wrote: »

How can you take the limitations act intoa student loan when there are no limitations to it?

The limitation is that the debt is not enforcable through the courts.

Whether it is recoverable by any other means is irrelevant. It is still statute barred.

king100

Fine, but saying it is SB is misleading as they can still get their money one way or another.

I know what SB means, what difference does it make if a debt becomes SB if all it does it stop them going to court to enforce it when they can deduct it from your wages or benefits.

If you want to go into the ins and outs of what can and cannot be SB, it a total contradication.

So they cant take you to court but they can make you pay the debt from wages or salary, the debt maybe SB but the enforecement, but not through court, is still available.

king100

http://www.debtadvisersdirect.co.uk/Features/825/Limitation-Act-1980.htm


Read exceptions to the rule. Student Loans.

fermi

king100 wrote: »

Fine, but saying it is SB is misleading as they can still get their money one way or another.

No it's not. It's accurate.

king100 wrote: »

I know what SB means, what difference does it make if a debt becomes SB if all it does it stop them going to court to enforce it when they can deduct it from your wages or benefits.

It makes a very big difference if you are being threatened with court action. That seems to be happening quite a lot lately, especially with statute barred DWP debts that they have passed over to scummy DCAs like iQor.

Not everyone is in receipt of benefits, or income that can be deducted from. In the absence of those, and when threats of legal action are made it would be very important.

king100 wrote: »

If you want to go into the ins and outs of what can and cannot be SB, it a total contradication.

Seems reasonably straight forward. What's contradictory?

king100 wrote: »

So they cant take you to court but they can make you pay the debt from wages or salary, the debt maybe SB but the enforecement, but not through court, is still available.

In certain limited cases, yes. I don't see what is hard to grasp in that?

fermi

king100 wrote: »

http://www.debtadvisersdirect.co.uk/Features/825/Limitation-Act-1980.htm


Read exceptions to the rule. Student Loans.

That doesn't say that court action is not barred, or that the debt wouldn't be statute barred.

Just that they have other avenues of enforcing payment that don't involve the courts.

Why on earth do you think they make the point that it doesn't involve the courts? It's because court action would be barred.

EDIT: Although I must admit, that article is a very poor explanation. If you rely on that, I can understand people drawing the wrong conclusions.

pmf63

Funny how you are all saying the same thing but interpreting it differently. Based on what you are all saying, the SLC does not have to go to court to enforce repayment but all other creditors do so after 6 years SLC can still recover their money, because they don't have to go to court, but others can't

king100

fermi wrote: »

That doesn't say that court action is not barred, or that the debt wouldn't be statute barred.

Just that they have other avenues of enforcing payment that don't involve the courts.

Why on earth do you think they make the point that it doesn't involve the courts? It's because court action would be barred.

Not at all, they dont need to take you to court to get their money..FULL STOP.

So calling it SB, just because you havent paid it off in 6 years, doesnt make a difference. HMMMM let me think, I can legally take your money by other enforcement without going to court.

Call it what you want SB or not, it isnt right calling it SB when they dont need court action to enforce it in the 1st place.

fermi

pmf63 wrote: »

Funny how you are all saying the same thing but interpreting it differently. Based on what you are all saying, the SLC does not have to go to court to enforce repayment but all other creditors do so after 6 years SLC can still recover their money, because they don't have to go to court, but others can't

The long and short of it. Yes.

As said, the same with debts to DWP. They have a legal right to deduct anything owed from benefits you are receiving now. They don't have to go to court to enforce that right.

fermi

king100 wrote: »

Not at all, they dont need to take you to court to get their money..FULL STOP.

So calling it SB, just because you havent paid it off in 6 years, doesnt make a difference. HMMMM let me think, I can legally take your money by other enforcement without going to court.

Call it what you want SB or not, it isnt right calling it SB when they dont need court action to enforce it in the 1st place.

Of course it is. It's what being statute barred means.