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

fermi

Usa2012 wrote: »

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.

Because that is the preferred practice of some debt collectors. They don't care if it is utterly inaccurate. Debt collectors who do this just add a new default on the date for purchase, sometimes removing or replacing an original earlier one from the original creditor.

They know it is wrong, but unless you argue the toss the CRAs and authorities will never notice. The collectors do it because it is an easier date for them to reference, many people don't know it is wrong, but more importantly because it extends the time the default etc remains on your credit report. People have less incentive to get in touch and pay an accurate or already dropped off account default. An outrageously late default often forces people to make contact in an attempt to dispute or sort it.

fermi

Statute barred debt:-

- Creditor is free to issue proceedings. (But then so is anyone. I would put in a court claim for you for any spurious reason I chose. Does not mean I would succeed in such a claim)
- The debt being statute barred means that "action shall not be brought". You would think that means that a claim could not be started in the first place, but actually in practiec the way our courts work it means that the debt being SB would be a complete defence against any claim.
- A court will only consider a defence if you submit one. If you do not, then they will not look at any issues or merit of the claim on their own initiative. An undefended claim is simply a rubber stamping exercise by court staff if the plaintiff requests judgement. So if you don't defend a claim on a statute barred debt the plaintiff will just be awarded the CCJ automatically.

While most creditors will not start a claim on a statute barred debt, so will chance their arm if they think you will not defend. or some will even be sneaky and have the claim issued to a previous address of yours, meaning you don't find out about it soon enough to defend.

Stone_Fox

Thank you for all the excellent advice.

One more question;

If I have something on my credit file that I know to be statute barred but with a more recent date added by a debt company, what's my next step?

I've never really needed until now but having a decent credit score would have saved my bacon this last week.

fermi

Assuming that the default date falls outside ICO guiance, then...

You would raise a dispute with the CRAs AND write to the company concerned making points roughly that:

- They are in breach of the requirement of the data protection Act and ICO guidance.
- The default date on your report is inaccurate, and falls outside ICO guidance.
- You require then to correct it to with xx months of xx/xx/xxxx date.
- Should they fail to correct the entry, in any way try to avoid doing so, or make any attempt to excuse or justify the incorrect information, then you will without exception take the matter to the FOS and ICO.

Stone_Fox

fermi wrote: »

Assuming that the default date falls outside ICO guiance, then...

You would raise a dispute with the CRAs AND write to the company concerned making points roughly that:

- They are in breach of the requirement of the data protection Act and ICO guidance.
- The default date on your report is inaccurate, and falls outside ICO guidance.
- You require then to correct it to with xx months of xx/xx/xxxx date.
- Should they fail to correct the entry, in any way try to avoid doing so, or make any attempt to excuse or justify the incorrect information, then you will without exception take the matter to the FOS and ICO.

Perfect, thank you so much.

One thing... I've got no idea what the correct default dates ARE. Or any paperwork. They're 9-10 years ago... I can't really ask them to correct it if I don't know the correct answer.

fermi

OK.

- You require them to correct it to an accurate date. The account in question defaulted no later than 2003/4/5 (whatever you think most likely), so you require that the default date is corrected to reflect that fact.

In the end, 8 or 9 or 10 years ago makes no difference. The default should be more than 6 years old. no matter which way you look at it, so even if they only change it to the most recent possibility, it would still result in the default and account dropping off your report once corrected.

Stone_Fox

I've just pressed the log-in button purely to thank you. Outstanding advice my friend.