Stature-barred automated payment?

gmoneyrb

Hello,

I have recently sent a stature-barred letter to a company chasing an old debt for a now closed HSBC current acount. They sent me through a statement of accounts which shows two payments were made into the account on 23rd Dec 2008, for £0.13 and £0.03.

However, these were automatic payments made by HSBC as when they closed my savings account it transferred the amounts across to the current account, then closed this account aswell.

My question is this, will this debt not be stature-barred because of this automatic payment or can I still proceed with further stature-barred letters to the debt company?

Any guidance appreciated.

FireWyrm

It only starts the clock again if YOU make a payment or otherwise acknowledge the debt in writing. I think you can safely discount those odd penny payments, it couldnt possibly be construed as 'acknowledgement' which is what a payment is all about anyway.

gmoneyrb

If that is correct, what is the best course of action to go forward with? I have sent them the template stature-barred letter which they responded to as I mentioned above, is there another template letter I can send to them telling them that these payments were not by me and therefore not acknowledgement of the debt?

fermi

Please phone National Debtline to see what they think.

It is possible that the payment here could be sufficient to restart the clock.

Having a look at my references I see a quote from Halsbury whereby they say that:

A part payment may be sufficient if it is made by the creditor to himself by agreement with the debtor, out of
the debtor's funds in the creditor's hands.

FireWyrm

gmoneyrb wrote: »

If that is correct, what is the best course of action to go forward with? I have sent them the template stature-barred letter which they responded to as I mentioned above, is there another template letter I can send to them telling them that these payments were not by me and therefore not acknowledgement of the debt?

Fermi is usually right, but in this case, it seems to be anyone's guess. Personally, I would proceed as though it has not started the clock again, in which case, a standard Stat-Bar letter and radio silence, but look out for a potential CCJ depending on the size of the debt. It would be awfully rude for the clock to have started over 16p which you didnt even pay.

fermi

FireWyrm wrote: »

Fermi is usually right, but in this case, it seems to be anyone's guess.

The quote I put up from an esteemed source does say MAY.

gmoneyrb

I think I will give National Debtline a call to confirm.

The debt was an overdraft of almost £1,800.

Thanks for your help.

matttye

I think they will restart the statute barred clock.

Most if not all mainstream banks have the "right to set off" debts by taking money from other accounts you hold with them to pay off a debt with another account you hold with them.

You usually agree to this by accepting their T&C's when you sign up.

As such, you are giving the bank permission to initiate transactions on your behalf in the future. This is arguably no different than setting up a Standing Order to send money at some point in the future.

There would be absolutely no argument that a Standing Order, Direct Debit or Continuous Payment Authority would restart the SB clock. This seems similar.

Let us know what NDL say about this! I'm curious to know.

fatbelly

Interesting. NDL are pretty good at this sort of thing so their comments will be worth reading.

I'm going to go with the 'no' vote as this is an action where the timing is determined by the creditor. I think it would be 'strange' if the creditor could stop time running by an action that they were solely in charge of.

OP - you don't need to send further letters. You've said it is SB. They've said it isn't because of these payments. They must now start a court claim so that the court can rule on it.

However, the more relevant date here may be - when did they actually call in the overdraft?

matttye

fatbelly wrote: »

I think it would be 'strange' if the creditor could stop time running by an action that they were solely in charge of.

Like a Direct Debit?

I'm not being deliberately obtuse.. it just seems like, with both a Direct Debit and a right to set off, you authorise the creditor to take monies at a point in the future. The creditor is the one that decides when to take the monies and the one who initialises the transaction in both.

It's hard to see what the difference is. Both are transactions initiated by the creditor, authorised by the customer.

spacey2012

If this were the case, any creditor would be able to make a payment, interest or dividend.
I would go with action has to be "caused" by the the persons.