Unknown 12yr old debt now being claimed

Hanky_Panky

roakes wrote: »

The £270 debt was caused by a one time glitch on their side which failed to charge me for a payment they had made on my behalf to the mortgage company. This amount then sat there without me being notified of its existence for 12 years, the payments I have been making to them have been to cover my normal bill payments month on month and at no time up until now has the existence of this debt been revealed or have any payments been taken that have been used to reduce this outstanding debt.

Yes - I'm aware of all of that - it still doesn't mean you have a leg to stand on with regards to the debt being statute barred. Other reasons like not being notified of the debt, quite possibly. It would be a shame for a possibly legitimate claim like yours to be declined because you used the wrong reasons to make the claim in the first place - I'm hoping that makes sense

roakes

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Yes - I'm aware of all of that - it still doesn't mean you have a leg to stand on with regards to the debt being statute barred. Other reasons like not being notified of the debt, quite possibly. It would be a shame for a possibly legitimate claim like yours to be declined because you used the wrong reasons to make the claim in the first place - I'm hoping that makes sense

Thanks, I appreciate the insight. If their complaints team do uphold the claim for the debt then I will ask them to put a full explanation of their stance in writing, to only communicate in writing going forward and take this over to http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/ to get them to weigh in and see where I stand.

FireWyrm

They extended you some credit. They may not have meant to and you certainly did not agree to it and now, 12 YEARS later, they 'find' the problem when you are trying to end your relationship with them and demand full payment. It is that simple

You cannot enter into a contract (simple or otherwise) by omission. You cannot incur a debt you did not agree to by any mechanism including their error.

The debt is not a debt, it is extended credit which you did not request or require. The error is theirs and they should fix it and put you in the position you would have been in should the 'error' not have existed. The 'debt' is also statute barred but since you didnt agree to it in the first place, I would maintain that it doesnt exist as far as you are concerned.

Hanky_Panky

FireWyrm wrote: »

They extended you some credit. They may not have meant to and you certainly did not agree to it and now, 12 YEARS later, they 'find' the problem when you are trying to end your relationship with them and demand full payment. It is that simple

You cannot enter into a contract (simple or otherwise) by omission. You cannot incur a debt you did not agree to by any mechanism including their error.

The debt is not a debt, it is extended credit which you did not request or require. The error is theirs and they should fix it and put you in the position you would have been in should the 'error' not have existed. The 'debt' is also statute barred but since you didnt agree to it in the first place, I would maintain that it doesnt exist as far as you are concerned.

It's your view however read what the OP signed up to and you can clearly see you're wrong.

FireWyrm

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

It's your view however read what the OP signed up to and you can clearly see you're wrong.

Frankly, I cant be bothered to answer you. Blocked.

nottoolate

nottoolate wrote: »

has not been paying against this debt

in acknowledgement to restart the clock you need to be making acknowledgement that the specific debt in question exists and is payable. did not happen here as was not known about by roakes.

in payment, payment has to be against that particular debt in the intention of the payer for it to restart the clock. again cannot possibly be here.

that is the correct legal stance

Hanky_Panky

FireWyrm wrote: »

Frankly, I cant be bothered to answer you. Blocked.

It's up to you - you can remain ignorant of the facts or you can learn something. With some of the claims you are making in other posts I would suggest you have a bit to learn yet.

nottoolate

FireWyrm wrote: »

Frankly, I cant be bothered to answer you. Blocked.

dont blame you

Hanky_Panky

nottoolate wrote: »

yes its a particular debt due a particular thing so should be able to be treated separately and be subject to 6 years statute barring. doesnt matter if youve been paying other things or even other instalments as this debt stands on its own. youve not made a payment or acknowledged this particular debt for over 6 or even 12 years. they cant even fall back on the fact that they just discovered it as they should reasonably have been able to do so before now so cant say the time did not start until then

Your missing the point - he has been making regular payments to each of the accounts via Secure Trust and he, as part of his agreement with them agreed to amortise the debts as part of his contract.

I'm really stunned that people think this is statute barred. As I have also mentioned though he certainly does have good cause for complaint if they haven't kept him informed about any arrears THEY ARE MANAGING ON HIS BEHALF AS AGREED IN HIS CONTRACT WITH THEM. Yes I am shouting that bit !

January2015

I am new to all this, but my view would be that his contract with ONEBILL is for a regular monthly payment, which has continued to be paid until he terminated the agreement. ONEBILL then used his payment to make payment to his creditors - but that's beside the point in my opinion.

His contract with ONEBILL was to make an agreed payment to them and he has continued to do that. Based on that I cannot see how it can be statute barred.

I understand the disputed amount relates to an error 12 years old, but his ONEBILL account has continued since that date with regular payments.

I agree there is a case to argue/dispute the error, but I don't think it can be considered statute barred.

The dispute is not with the mortgage company or any other creditor so the only relationship that matters for consideration of statute barred is the direct relationship between the OP and ONEBILL and there have been continuous, uninterrupted payments.

As I said, this is just my interpretation