has there been a change of law regarding statute barred debts recently?

Stone_Fox

I'm sure I remember reading an article in the last couple of years about debt companies being able to ?renew? debts without a court order rather than them being removed from your credit file after however many years...

I'm googling now trying to find the article, but does anyone else remember reading this? It might have been a proposed amendment rather than something that's been actualized is the only problem. I can only picture about half the article.

I found it because there's 2 defaults/ccj's on my history dated not that long ago that I know to be from at least 9 years ago.

fermi

Nope. Defaulted accounts are still removed from your credit file 6 years from the default date. They cannot/should not put another default back on again or change the date of the original.

However, some debt collectors do take the p and put things back on with recent defaults. If they do then you can complain to get it taken off or corrected.

CCJ are a separate issue, and can be applied for at any time. Even if the debt is statute barred, as it is your responsibility to defend the CCJ. If you don't, then they get one by default, even on a SB debt.

Usa2012

fermi wrote: »

Nope. Defaulted accounts are still removed from your credit file 6 years from the default date. They cannot/should not put another default back on again or change the date of the original.

However, some debt collectors do take the p and put things back on with recent defaults. If they do then you can complain to get it taken off or corrected.

CCJ are a separate issue, and can be applied for at any time. Even if the debt is statute barred, as it is your responsibility to defend the CCJ. If you don't, then they get one by default, even on a SB debt.

Can I ask a quick question, is a statute barred debt not a defence in itself? I find it all confusing. How do you defend a debt that is statute barred? I sent a SB letter 3 weeks ago and haven't heard anything yet but others are scaring me saying to expect court papers any day :-(
Feeling stressed

matttye

Usa2012 wrote: »

Can I ask a quick question, is a statute barred debt not a defence in itself? I find it all confusing. How do you defend a debt that is statute barred? I sent a SB letter 3 weeks ago and haven't heard anything yet but others are scaring me saying to expect court papers any day :-(
Feeling stressed

You receive court papers.

You respond to the claim saying the debt is statute barred.

The burden of proof is then on the creditor to prove it's not statute barred.

When you return any court papers you have to send them back to the claimant's solicitors rather than to the court itself, so make sure if you do get any you send them back by recorded delivery. They often claim non-receipt of responses.

Tixy

Yes being statute barred is a defence in itself.

Its only if no defence is submitted on a SB debt that a judgment would still be granted (and then you have to go through the hassle of a set aside application).

If its SB and the creditor knows you are aware of the law then its unlikely they will try take court action. But a creditor may chance it if a debtor has ignored them in the hope that the debtor doesn't know the law.

Usa2012

So, it's been 3 weeks today since they got the letter (sent recorded).
Would I normally have heard something either way if it is contested etc?
It was apex dealing with an old welcome finance debt. Never heard of apex before.
I sent the SB letter that is on this site, so assume it sounds like I know the law lol

Tixy

Would I normally have heard something either way if it is contested etc?

Not necessarily.
They may not respond at all.
They may write to say they have put a hold on the account whilst they look in to it further.
They may write to accept/agree that the debt is indeed statute barred.
They could write to disagree that its SB and state why they think it is (e.g. if they say a payment was made 5years ago and you know it was not then do challenge them on that, not unheard of for debt collectors to simply make up alleged payments).

Usa2012

Is it common to ignore my SB letter and go straight for a ccj regardless ?

spacey2012

Even if it is is SB they can still ask you to pay and use all methods of intimidation available to them.
If the debt was not SB, they would write back immediately and re-but it.
It is perfectly normal for them to ignore SB letters if a debt is SB and continue harassment tactics, the reason is because they often do work.
If you are 100% sure this is a SB debt and have written, then sit back and ignore all letters bar genuine stamped Court papers.
Once they get the message they will move on and look for a new target.
They may have only paid a couple of pound for the old credit file, so once the fish stops pulling the line, they will apply their small office time to someone more likely to keep biting the bait.

matttye

Usa2012 wrote: »

Is it common to ignore my SB letter and go straight for a ccj regardless ?

It really does depend on each case. There's nothing to stop the creditor starting a claim, but you would simply defend it on the basis that the debt is SB.

I wouldn't worry too much about it unless something actually happens. They may agree that it's SB and decide it's not worth pursuing further, in which case you may never hear from them again.

It depends on the company and how they deal with things.

Usa2012

Thank you everyone for the advice. I dread walking in each day in case there is post waiting for me. The default date is march 2008 but is also the same date it was satisfied/closed and sold to a debt company. I do believe that the default date was added late and can't understand why they defaulted the same date they closed and sold it. The company acting for them now is alpin Stockton fair fax , not apex lol ( silly iPhone).
I think they are a solicitor firm who deal with debts on behalf of companies. It feels more serious than a regular DCA.
Funny though that it was only sold to this firm in may this year and I received first and only letter in August.