Mortimer Clarke chasing an old debt HELP

sensaroman

Hi can anyone answer this question please?
I thought that a debt was statute barred after 6 years but Mortimer Clarke have taken me to court and sent a letter stating that:
The six year limitation period runs from the latest date on which:
1. A payment was made towards the debt or
2. The agreement was terminated or
3. You acknowledged the debt in writing


They are saying that POINT 2 applied and the agreement was terminated in November 2011.
I have not paid or acknowledged the debt from 2005 so I believe it is statute barred.
What are they talking about with point 2?


Thanks guys.

g6jns_2

Sounds like they are trying it on.

jonesMUFCforever

Shall we ''say'' that someone paid a quid towards the debt?
Clock then restarts - send them the standard letter from the sticky above - get them to prove that payment was made otherwise it is statute barred.

andyblack

Under the Limitation Act there are only 2 previsions where a person can acknowledge a debt under section 29 and section 30

1.Make payment in full or in part
2.Send a written letter which must be signed acknowledging the debt

Your statute barred date starts from the last time you made any type of payment or sent a letter acknowledging the debt

I would contact them to ask when the very last payment was made to the account or signed letter received

Ask them to provide proof of this

In your list Point 2 is complete tosh

grumbler

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Shall we ''say'' that someone paid a quid towards the debt?
Clock then restarts - send them the standard letter from the sticky above - get them to prove that payment was made otherwise it is statute barred.

Would it not have been "Point 1" then, not "Point 2"?

sensaroman

thanks guys for your help - I will ignore the letter and see what happens as I know this defaulted around 2005 and I have looked at the legislation and cannot find point 2 anywhere.

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

sensaroman wrote: »

...Mortimer Clarke have taken me to court...

Have you actually been given a court date or are they merely threatening to take you to court?

g6jns_2

sensaroman wrote: »

thanks guys for your help - I will ignore the letter and see what happens as I know this defaulted around 2005 and I have looked at the legislation and cannot find point 2 anywhere.

It might be better to write a reply quoting the case of Arkell v Pressdram.

MEM62

sensaroman wrote: »

thanks guys for your help - I will ignore the letter and see what happens as I know this defaulted around 2005 and I have looked at the legislation and cannot find point 2 anywhere.

DO NOT IGNORE IT!


Deal with it now or they may try the legal route in which case you will then have the additional hassle of defending a court claim. Ignoring things rarely results in a good outcome.