new statute barred letter?

ereader

I have debts of over 6 years old which are statute barred but am still getting hassle from some DCA. I found a letter to send on

h**p://w*w.debtwizard.com/debt-help/guides-and-advice/130-the-limitation-act-1980

Replace *** with tt and w as not allowed to post links on here

i would like to know if the letter on this site is a good one to use as i noticed it starts with the 'without prejudice' header and read on the old statute barred thread that we shouldnt use that.. the only reason i ask is that this is meant to be an up to date draft letter and do not want to send the the wrong one... also do i have to delete the we in the places its written i/we or is that just the legal way of writing things?

Thanks in advance, all help is appreciatedut this post in another thread but dont think it was in the right thread so moving it here

fatbelly

I had a quick look at it and the letter seems OK but I'd still prefer the one on our thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2606811

The article on the debtwizard site is a bit less good as it seems to infer that you can acknowledge a debt with a phone call (this is incorrect) and keeps switching between Limitation and Limitations as the name of the Act.

Don't send either version unless you are 100% sure that there has been a period of 6 years where you did not acknowledge the debt by payment or in writing.

ereader

thanks for your quick reply fatbelly.. thought id paste the letter here just for reference for others as well.. cheers

---

Letter responding to a creditor’s claim that you feel your debt is statute barred.
Updated 24 October 2011

Replace and delete any unwanted text (mainly in blue) with your details and words, then make sure all the text is in black font, keep a copy and post recorded delivery. Check the I/We & me/us

(Your name & address)

(Date)

(Insert name & address of the company
that has written or called you )


Without prejudice

Dear Sir /Madam

Reference: (insert account number and name of lender pursuing)

This letter does not admit liability nor does it acknowledge the alleged debt.

I / We write following your recent contact with myself /us regarding a debt that you claim I / we owe.

I / We would point out that under the Section 5 of The Limitation Act 1980 whereby ‘an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

I /We would also refer you to the Office of Fair Trading, (OFT) Debt Collection Guidelines (updated October 2011) whereby it states under ‘statute barred debt’ that ‘it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period’.

The Debt collection Guidance also states that it is unfair or improper business practice for the debt collection business to misrepresent its legal position when seeking to recover statute barred debt.

It continues to state that it is false representation of authority and/or legal position for business to contact debtors misrepresent their authority and/or the correct legal position with regards to debts or the debt recovery process.

The guidance also gives an example of unfair or improper practice as ‘falsely implying or stating that action can, or will, be taken, when legally it cannot be taken’.

Under Annex B6 it states;

‘A relevant claim will normally take the form of the creditor raising an action for payment in court. Simply sending a default notice or a letter demanding payment will not constitute a relevant claim’.

The OFT ‘Debt Collection Guidance’ further states that by continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statue barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. I / We would also consider The Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I note from my records that the last payment / correspondence / or acknowledgement of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time.

As you have failed to provide evidence under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or the OFT updated Debt Collection Guidance then I / we suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me / us to recover the alleged amount claimed.

If you subsequently cannot prove I /we owe this debt and if you continue to act in this irresponsible and unprofessional way then I / we will have no other alternative than to report you to Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading. I / we will also lodge a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service and your trade association, if appropriate, the Credit Services Association.

If I / we receive any communication from another debt collection agency then it will be evident that you have sold this debt on with the knowledge that it is statute barred. Should this occur then I / we will report you to the government bodies and trade association detailed above.

I / We now await written confirmation that this matter is now closed, you are not to contact me / us by telephone, instead by letter only.

I / We look forward to your reply by return.

Yours faithfully


(Insert your signature)
(Insert your name)

Notes

You now need to post this letter if you send it recorded delivery to guarantee postage then you can trace the letter at the following website:

ereader

do i still use the without prejudice header and also do i have to delete the we from the i/we?

edit: presume i use Fermi letter

fatbelly

ereader wrote: »

do i still use the without prejudice header and also do i have to delete the we from the i/we?

edit: presume i use Fermi letter

Use Fermi's letter. Use 'I' (unless it's a joint debt and you're both writing). If you're 100% sure of your position, you don't need 'without prejudice'

On the other letter, it seems a bit muddled between the old and new versions of the OFT guidance.

The OFT ‘Debt Collection Guidance’ further states that by continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statue barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. I / We would also consider The Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

should read:

The OFT ‘Debt Collection Guidance’ further states that by continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statue barred may be an unfair or improper practice.

Sorry, got to go now.

ereader

thanks for your quick replies and have a good evening

fermi

It is also getting confused between sections of the OFT guidance that refer to legal action under the Scottish and English courts.

Plus referencing the AoJ Act 1970 in circumstances where it no longer applies, as that was amended regarding unfair commercial practices by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Which, is something that the amended OFT guidance takes into account, but this letter does not.

Honestly, I don't think it would matter if you did send that one (if you sure you are going to send one at all), as long as you clearly make the points that:

(1) you do not acknowledge the debt and

(2) the debt is statute barred, so the creditor/DCA should "back off".

Both do that, but I personally would prefer the one that is more factual, coherent and succinct.

ereader

im going to go with yours fermi, thanks for your help. i will be sending the letters as these debts are between 8 and 10 years old, just never sorted them properly. i appreciate all the help you have give me and hopefully after i send these off, that will be the end of it.

thanks