Help statute barred claim received

InsideInsurance

grumbler wrote: »

I think in this case the onus lies on the other party to prove that it isn't statute barred.

It is ultimately a debate, the OP will say its statute barred, the other side will provide any evidence it has to show it isnt, the OP then shows whatever evidence they may have to prove it is. The Judge, given its a civil case, then decides which of the two is the most likely version and then applies the law appropriately.

Obv in this case, and for debt in general, its difficult to have any evidence to prove you have failed to do something for 6 years but if you do have evidence its prudent to bring it.

grumbler

InsideInsurance wrote: »

...Obv in this case, and for debt in general, its difficult to have any evidence to prove you have failed to do something for 6 years...

Yes, that was the point.
Without knowing the evidence that the other part presents, how can one prove that no payments and no acknowledgments had been made?

chanz4

no payment doesn't mean SB, think bank what you did around the time

Aquamania

anthony1 wrote: »

I have already got the claim form from the claimant, do i send reply to court

Read what you've been sent by the court ... all of it.

It will tell you how to proceed

Aquamania

grumbler wrote: »

Yes, that was the point.
Without knowing the evidence that the other part presents, how can one prove that no payments and no acknowledgments had been made?

They can't.

The defendant (OP) will claim in defence that the debt is statute barred.

The claimant will (presumably) prove otherwise.

Usually a order is made prior to to exchange evidence that is to later be relied upon in court (if it gets that far)

If they still can't agree, it will usually end up in court and the judge will consider the evidence and make a judgement accordingly
(He might even decide without a hearing if its clear cut)

glentoran99

Might not be so clear cut though, as many posts have been on here that they have been known to make a up a payment, its then down to you to prove you didnt make it

fatbelly

glentoran99 wrote: »

Might not be so clear cut though, as many posts have been on here that they have been known to make a up a payment, its then down to you to prove you didnt make it

Yes, unfortunately that is very common and , more recently, creditors appear to be presenting false evidence to the courts.

Legalbeagles are on top of this and it would be worth posting over there

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?105-Received-a-Court-Claim

anthony1

I have all records from a sar some years ago. I have 3 different proofs that the last payment was June 2008. How to I word my defence.

sourcrates

anthony1 wrote: »

I have all records from a sar some years ago. I have 3 different proofs that the last payment was June 2008. How to I word my defence.

You are relying on sec 5, of the Limitations act, 1980.
Which states :


"The time limit for actions founded on simple contract.
An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
This debt has not been acknowledged by myself since June 2008."


The above paragraph will suffice as full defence, include copies of your evidence, if requested.

anthony1

Do I have to include any evidence now. I didn't want to give the other side the opportunity of doing anything devious