Statute barred debts still on statutory credit report after 6 years

Gr8st33t

Dear fellow forumites,

First of all a big thanks to the wonderful contributions and wealth of information you provided on this thread.

Having read the first part of this thread, especially fermi's very helpful template letters, I'm trying to decide if these apply to my case and what course of action to take.

I've received my statutory credit report from Experian. I note that according to the Limitations Act:

A simple contract debt will normally be statute- barred if:

• the creditor has not already obtained a county court judgment (CCJ) against you;

and

• you or anyone else owing the money (if your debt is in joint names) have not made a payment towards the debt during the last six years;

and

• you have not written to the creditor admitting you owe the debt during the last six years.

All three points apply to all my debts which were incurred in the early 2000s when I was a student (over 10 years ago). That is, I've not received any CCJ's nor are any listed on my credit report, I've not made any payment since at least 2004 and have not made any written acknowledgments of these debts since at least 2005.

However, on my credit report, three lenders are still listed. The first lender Virgin Media is listed under the section "Credit Account Information" and the second lender "Lowell Portfolio" under the section "Previous Searches" and the third Active Kapital (Halifax) under "Linked Addresses".

My question relates to the following:

1) Do these companies appearing under these sections constitute "pursuance for debt" after the limitation period of 6 years has expired?

2) Do I have to write to them first to inform them that these debts are now statute barred before they actually become statute barred, OR, are they automatically statute barred as long as I meet the three criteria listed above?

3) If I don't need to write to these companies in order to make these debts statute barred, am I within my rights to ask a) the CRA to remove these references and/or b) the companies themselves, given they are already statute barred?

4) Which of the three sections (Credit Account Information, Previous Searches, Linked Addresses) are most likely to affect my credit rating and which should I prioritize?

Thanks for the input and sorry for the long post!

Gr8st33t

^^^ With regard to my post above, I'd also be interested to hear from anyone who's had a similar experience and how they dealt with this, thanks!

fermi

1) No. Although the one there in credit account information arguably should not be there. What is the default date on it? And when does that relate to the time you did last pay it?

2) No. It's a legal bar under statute. It just is.

If you were taken to court (unlikely) then that would be your defence. If the court decided the debt was statute barred under the LA1980, then the court claim would be dismissed.

3) No with the searches and linked addresses. They do not effect your credit score etc - debt collection searches do not show to other lenders. The debt is still legally owed. They can search. That is all they can do.

If the default date on the Virgin account is wrong then you could dispute that. But that is a factual matter regarding when the account really did default and nothing to do with it being statute barred or not.

4) Inaccurate info in Credit account info. The other two matter not.

Gr8st33t

fermi wrote: »

1) No. Although the one there in credit account information arguably should not be there. What is the default date on it? And when does that relate to the time you did last pay it?

2) No. It's a legal bar under statute. It just is.

If you were taken to court (unlikely) then that would be your defence. If the court decided the debt was statute barred under the LA1980, then the court claim would be dismissed.

3) No with the searches and linked addresses. They do not effect your credit score etc - debt collection searches do not show to other lenders. The debt is still legally owed. They can search. That is all they can do.

If the default date on the Virgin account is wrong then you could dispute that. But that is a factual matter regarding when the account really did default and nothing to do with it being statute barred or not.

4) Inaccurate info in Credit account info. The other two matter not.

Hi Fermi,

Thanks for your helpful reply.

1) There is no mention of a default as far as I can tell. Under start date it says : 12/07/04, then under this is the balance which is £24. Then next to this, it says "account updated to 27/01/13", which is what I'm confused about since I've not made any payment/written communication between these two dates and in fact at any time for at least 9 years. The "Account Status" is coded as 0, which according to Experian's notes means: "Payments are up to date (0 months in arrears)." As I've said I've not made any payments at all to this account.

In this case should I just go ahead and ask Experian to remove this? Are there any template letters that can be tailored to this?

Thanks again!

fermi

Very odd.

Well, if it is non defaulted and recorded as up to date, then it is doing you no harm at all being there I think? The reverse perhaps?

You could still complain that it is inaccurate, but I struggle to see the point...

Gr8st33t

fermi wrote: »

Very odd.

Well, if it is non defaulted and recorded as up to date, then it is doing you no harm at all being there I think? The reverse perhaps?

You could still complain that it is inaccurate, but I struggle to see the point...

Yes...this is what I was thinking...what if having it removed would actually worsen my credit rating, as I would have no more credit record, since you said that those lenders appearing under the "previous searches" are not visible to other lenders.

I'm positive I've not misread the statement, as Experian's code for "default" is "8", rather than "0".