Link financial Outsourcing challenging Statute barred status - what should I do?

WhitmoreReans

A while ago i received a letter from Link demanding immediate payment for a student loan from 1996. As I thought that it was statute barred I sent them the standard letter and forgot about it. Until yesterday when they replied to tell me it wasn't:

Dear Whitmore Reans,

Thank you for your recent letter regarding your student loan.

Whilst we acknowledge your assertion that the matter is statute barred, the last correspondence received from you was your deferment application to defer repayment of your account for 12 months dated the 5th November 2004 which was accepted by the Student Loans Company (SLC) and ended on the 19th September 2005 a copy of your deferment application is enclosed. Also enclosed is a reprint of your annual statement as issued by the SLC which shows that your last payment was received on the 5th July 2005.

A simple contract matter only becomes subject to limitation after six years has expired with no acknowledgement of the debt from when the last cause of action occurred. This period started when your account exited deferment on the 20th September 2005, as your last acknowledgement via deferment was within six years your account is not statute barred.

Therefore, please contact our account officers with your proposals to redeem your outstanding balance by return.

Yours sincerely

Business Support Team

I don't know what to do. Do I ignore them and wait until September? I am well on the way to finally having a clear credit file so I am very keen not to have a CCJ on my record for the next six years (for me that would be a disaster and would ruin everything I am working for).
Also, I definitely didn't make the payment in July 2005 (I was living in Russia at this time) so it would appear that they are telling porkies - can I do anything about this?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.:o

WhitmoreReans

can anyone help?

fermi

They are correct. It won't be statute barred until September.

Gordon_Hose

Plenty of info on the web: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&biw=1259&bih=647&q=+site:forums.moneysavingexpert.com+can+student+loans+go+statute+barred&surl=1

Link are scum though.

Culex

Do you live in England or (the soon-to-be People's Republic of) Scotland?

WhitmoreReans

Hi Culex, I'm in England - the thing I'm worried about is if they start proceedings against me to obtain a CCJ now that they know where I'm 'alive' so to speak. A CCJ would be an absolute disaster, I'm working towards the realisation of my dream career and a CCJ would kill that dream stone dead for ever, everything I've worked for and all of the sacrifices that I've had to make would be for nowt, so as you can imagine it's something that I want to avoid. Before anyone suggests paying Link - a)I don't have (any) the money, b)the amount is in serious dispute and c)I'm a reasonable person, treat me in a reasonable manner and I'll do likewise. Treat me unreasonably and I'll do the same. Link, as you can imagine, have not been reasonable.

Culex

WhitmoreReans wrote: »

Hi Culex, I'm in England - the thing I'm worried about is if they start proceedings against me to obtain a CCJ now that they know where I'm 'alive' so to speak. A CCJ would be an absolute disaster, I'm working towards the realisation of my dream career and a CCJ would kill that dream stone dead for ever, everything I've worked for and all of the sacrifices that I've had to make would be for nowt, so as you can imagine it's something that I want to avoid. Before anyone suggests paying Link - a)I don't have (any) the money, b)the amount is in serious dispute and c)I'm a reasonable person, treat me in a reasonable manner and I'll do likewise. Treat me unreasonably and I'll do the same. Link, as you can imagine, have not been reasonable.

No, they never are. They are purulent pustules upon the backside of humanity.

Apart from asking why a CCJ would apparently be so terrible, there is this from Link themselves:

Whilst we acknowledge your assertion that the matter is statute barred, the last correspondence received from you was your deferment application to defer repayment of your account for 12 months dated the 5th November 2004 which was accepted by the Student Loans Company (SLC) and ended on the 19th September 2005 a copy of your deferment application is enclosed. Also enclosed is a reprint of your annual statement as issued by the SLC which shows that your last payment was received on the 5th July 2005.

A simple contract matter only becomes subject to limitation after six years has expired with no acknowledgement of the debt from when the last cause of action occurred. This period started when your account exited deferment on the 20th September 2005, as your last acknowledgement via deferment was within six years your account is not statute barred.

That seems to admit that you had last acknowledged the debt in writing on 05/11/04 so, unless they are correct about when the "last cause of action occurred", the debt would indeed seem to be statute barred.

Debt collectors cannot be relied upon to tell the truth on such matters, so see a solicitor and get his/her opinion.

The payment allegedly made in 2005 makes no sense whatever, regardless of where you were living at the time. You may need to clarify that matter, so make a Subject Access Request to the original creditor, SLC.

fermi

Culex wrote: »

That seems to admit that you had last acknowledged the debt in writing on 05/11/04 so, unless they are correct about when the "last cause of action occurred", the debt would indeed seem to be statute barred.

Sorry. Not true.

You are confusing the original accrual of the "right of action" with subsequent renewal of that "right of action" due to later acknowledgement or part payment.

Those are not the same.

For a statute barred debt, the clock starts ticking the first time on the 6 years when the creditor's initial "right of action" accrues.

For most debts that would be when you fail to make the contractual payment required. e.g missed the monthly payments for the first time.

However, in this case deferment means that no payments are due under the agreement until that deferment period is ended.

When you then fail to further defer and miss the payments that then become due, THAT is the time that the creditor's "right of action" accrues, as that is the first time the creditor is entitled to take you to court.

It's not until after that has happened that the provisions for restarting the 6 year period upon acknowledgement or part payment come into force.

Culex

fermi wrote: »

You are confusing the original accrual of the "right of action" with subsequent renewal of that "right of action" due to later acknowledgement or part payment.

Those are not the same.

For a statute barred debt, the clock starts ticking the first time on the 6 years when the creditor's initial "right of action" accrues.

For most debts that would be when you fail to make the contractual payment required. e.g missed the monthly payments for the first time.

However, in this case deferment means that no payments are due under the agreement until that deferment period is ended.

When you then fail to further defer and miss the payments that then become due, THAT is the time that the creditor's "right of action" accrues, as that is the first time the creditor is entitled to take you to court.

It's not until after that has happened that the provisions for restarting the 6 year period upon acknowledgement or part payment come into force.

Yes, I did understand that point of view - but is it legally correct?

If it was really so simple, why did they also state:

Also enclosed is a reprint of your annual statement as issued by the SLC which shows that your last payment was received on the 5th July 2005.

The reference to an alleged payment in July 2005 does seem to suggest that Link are not quote sure about the status of the debt and, when one considers that most (if not all) debt collectors are among the most disingenuous rogues ever to plague this planet, would it not be wise to seek professional legal advice on this matter?

fermi

Culex wrote: »

Yes, I did understand that point of view - but is it legally correct?

Yes. As far as I am aware.

Culex wrote: »

If it was really so simple, why did they also state:

Presumably as they are making the point that both the original "cause of action" or payment they allege fall within the 6 year limitation period. The standard letter after all claims that no such payment was made.

WhitmoreReans

They've started phoning the house today. Thankfully, my OH has just told them where to go!