Payplan, cleardebt and debtadvisorycentre misleading info on Limitations Act 1980

fermi

http://www.payplan.com/debt-news/2011/04/26/limitations-act-1980/

Interesting and very incorrect interpretation of the law.

Pretty appalling coming from such an organisation.

Some of the problems are getting information completely and factually incorrect, while others are perhaps due to just putting things in a badly phrased way?

The Limitations Act 1980 states that a creditor is usually not allowed to seek legal action against you regarding debt repayment if they have failed to maintain contact with you for at least six years.

If a creditor fails to maintain contact with you for six years or more in legal terms then the debt becomes “Statute Barred” under conditions set out by the Limitations Act.

We know that is not true.

It is acknowledgement in writing or payment by the person liable for the debt that restarts the 6 years.

Nothing whatsoever to to with the creditor "maintaining contact".

The creditor could write and phone every day of the entire 6 years and it would not stop the debt becoming statute barred.

Maybe that is just due to the person writing that failing to explain themselves clearly? Could well be so, but it is still misleading.

However, the later part below is completely and blatantly inaccurate and misleading with no such excuse.

What happens if they contact me after six years?

After six years of no contact with your creditor (and if none of the Limitations Act exceptions apply to you) if they then contact you, do not admit to the debt!

Once you admit to the debt then you are required to pay the debt back and the creditor can pursue further legal action against you.

Utter nonsense. :eek:

Most of us know that once a debt becomes statute barred, then nothing you subsequently do can unbar it.

The Limitation Act 1980 specifically states that:

"... a right of action, once barred by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent acknowledgment or payment."

So legal action would still be barred, even if you make a payment or acknowledge the debt once the 6 years has passed.

Numpty_Monkey

I hope you send Payplan a little note:T
pointing out the errors:eek:
you can phrase things better than most;)

The information they have is so wrong and misleading :mad:
is it illigal:eek:

Culex

Numpty_Monkey wrote: »

I hope you send Payplan a little note:T
pointing out the errors:eek:
you can phrase things better than most;)

The information they have is so wrong and misleading :mad:
is it illigal:eek:

I wonder if my comment will pass 'moderation':

The Infamous Culex on Your comment is awaiting moderation. April 26th, 2011 12:44 pm

Have you ever read section 5 & 6 of the Limitation Act 1980?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58

I strongly suggest you do, as there is no way in which a statute barred debt could become unbarred.

For Scotland, the relevant period is five years and the statute is the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 – specifically section 6 and schedule 2.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52/contents

fermi

Culex wrote: »

I wonder if my comment will pass 'moderation':

Not any more.

Pages not Found, Error 404

The page you are looking for no longer exists.

Payplan_company_representative

Hi guys

Many thanks for the comments and feedback regarding our blog on the Limitations Act. We’ve just taken that post down temporarily and we’re having a very close look at it to make sure that it is totally accurate and unambiguous, after which we’ll republish it.

Thanks again
Lizzy

geoffky

good for you..but the person you employ to do this job should do it more..makes you look amateurish.

fermi

Payplan_company_representative wrote: »

Hi guys

Many thanks for the comments and feedback regarding our blog on the Limitations Act. We’ve just taken that post down temporarily and we’re having a very close look at it to make sure that it is totally accurate and unambiguous, after which we’ll republish it.

Thanks again
Lizzy

Thanks for that.

Sorry to make such an issue of it, but people depend on companies like PayPlan for accurate advice.

Obviously blog posts aren't the most reliable place to source such advice, and if in doubt people should seek one-on-one help.

However, not everyone takes that step, and many just take something like the info published today on face value without questioning it further, assuming it is accurate just because it is on your site.

Also, there is enough misinformation out there regarding the English/Scottish Limitations Acts as it is, much of it perpetuated by debt collectors etc, so it's even more important for sources such as PayPlan to 'get it right'.

I was also disappointed to see that post today, as PayPlan had previously had glaring inaccuracies in their Limitation Act article on the main help sections, and it took quite some time and effort to get PayPlan to correct that. So to see some similar misconceptions reposted all over again was somewhat galling.

Anyway, thanks for taking notice.

fermi

Seems that this scarily innacurate info went further than just PayPlan.

http://www.cleardebt.co.uk/debt-advice/downloadable-debt-help-guides/out-of-date-debt/

is a carbon copy repeating the same bullwarks.

Doesn't say much for a debt company that can't even get basic things like this correct.

fermi

cleardebt.co.uk wrote:

If the creditor does not contact you (the debtor) for 6 years or more, you (the debtor) may be able to claim that the outstanding debt is Statute Barred under the conditions of the Limitations Act.

Misleading.

The creditor contacting you has nothing to do with it at all.

cleardebt.co.uk wrote:

Creditors can pursue an unsecured debt if:

• Payment to the account or County Court Judgement (CCJ) has been made within the past 6 years.This includes payments from any people named on the credit agreement, not just you.
• Contact has been made with any party named on the credit agreement. This can be by telephone, letter or email in order to request a balance or change details. An exception to this is contact for reasons to deny the debt exists.

Contact "has been made with"?

Twaddle. It is written signed acknowlegement from the debtor that counts. Nothing else.

Telephone? :rotfl:

Phone calls/emails do not count, even if recorded.

The Act is specific. Acknowledgement MUST be in writing and signed by the debtor.

cleardebt.co.uk wrote:

If a creditor continues to chase a debtor when the debt is Statute Barred and the debtor has stated their intention not to pay the debt, the debtor may be able to claim harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

(a) That does not apply any more, as has been replaced by CPUTR 2008.
(b) It is also against OFT debt collection guidelines, which is in a practical sense much more vital.

cleardebt.co.uk wrote:

If the creditor has previously taken you (the debtor) to court and a CCJ has been awarded, you (the debtor) will be able to use the Limitations Act 1980 to dispute the debt, if the CCJ is over 6 years old and no payments have been made.

Again misleading, if maybe only by glaring omission.

If the CCJ has been made after the 6 years when the debt was statute barred, then you can apply to have it set aside.

cleardebt.co.uk wrote:

What do you do if a creditor contacts you after 6 years or over?

Don't admit to owing the debt. Once you acknowledge the debt (in writing) the time starts again and the creditor can use the legal system to enforce the debt. If part payment is made, even after a 6-year gap, the Limitations Act 1980 cannot be claimed until a further 6 years has passed.

What a load of twaddle. :eek:

Most of us know that once a debt becomes statute barred, then nothing you subsequently do can unbar it.

The Limitation Act 1980 specifically states that:

"... a right of action, once barred by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent acknowledgment or payment."

So legal action would still be barred, even if you make a payment or acknowledge the debt once the 6 years has passed.

Shame on you cleardebt for all of that.

Rednelly_2

Hi Fermi,

Thanks for getting in touch (I work for ClearDebt). We are looking carefully at this page and will be correcting it/bringing it up to date as quickly as we can - will let you know when the new version is up.

fermi

Rednelly wrote: »

Hi Fermi,

Thanks for getting in touch (I work for ClearDebt). We are looking carefully at this page and will be correcting it/bringing it up to date as quickly as we can - will let you know when the new version is up.

Thank you for that.

Sorry to be a pain and a bit forthright.

Usually if I try the "softly softly" approach with companies, I get nowhere.

I do however think that companies should check carefully information they put on their websites that has legal implications like this.