Unknown 12yr old debt now being claimed

redux

I feel a bit stuck on the fence with this, but likely to come down on one side.

It seems to me to be possible to argue that paying them regularly is acknowledging the group of debts and assuming they were correctly being accounted for.

The subsequent discovery that one item has erroneously not been covered doesn't remove that fact.

The arrangement with Onebill is only just ending, so there has not been a 6 year gap after the final tallying of the account.

The OP has done well to get them to offer a goodwill discount, and wait to see if they will discount it again. If it eventually turns out they don't I'd be tempted to pay the other £135 anyway. Continuing to argue further or seek legal type opinions might be worthwhile if it was a much larger amount, but at some stage you ask yourself how much more effort am I willing to spend.

nottoolate

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

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.

not missing point at all. you are.

but you always seem to, so no surprise.

at most any debt due would be spread over a year or less. so under contract even if this one had been charge it would have had to have been paid under that contact in less than a year.

so cause of action which is the first point they could have taken action under the contract had they charged it correctly would also have been in a year or less.
acknowledgement or payment must be made again that specific liability to be effective.

so this is statute barred by 11 years or more.

Hanky_Panky

nottoolate wrote: »

not missing point at all. you are.

but you always seem to, so no surprise.

at most any debt due would be spread over a year or less. so under contract even if this one had been charge it would have had to have been paid under that contact in less than a year.

so cause of action which is the first point they could have taken action under the contract had they charged it correctly would also have been in a year or less.
acknowledgement or payment must be made again that specific liability to be effective.

so this is statute barred by 11 years or more.

You genuinely have no idea - how many of these contracts have you seen ? You also clearly have no idea how mortgage arrears can arise and also how they can quite happily sit on an account for years and finally I'm sure you are aware (aren't you) that the statute barred timescale for secured debt is 12 years. But hey - carry on giving out incorrect advice, no skin off my nose.

nottoolate

certainly have more of an idea than you :rotfl:

this is not a mortgage debt. that was paid. this is a simple contract debt and so is subject to 6 years limitation.

11 or so years have passed

Hanky_Panky

nottoolate wrote: »

certainly have more of an idea than you :rotfl:

this is not a mortgage debt. that was paid. this is a simple contract debt and so is subject to 6 years limitation.

11 or so years have passed

So as I mentioned previously - you have no idea how these contracts work and it doesn't look like you have ever seen one but you still like to claim you know more about it - priceless :rotfl:

ETA: just realised you are now also being inconsistent trying to make your argument work. If as you state it is a simple contract debt then when did he make his last payment to them ? It certainly wasn't over 6 years ago. So it's either a mortgage debt in which case the statute barred timescale would be 12 years or it's a 'contract debt' for which he has been paying up until quite recently. You can't have it both ways.

In any event it's still misleading to talk about it being statute barred as it's down to the agreement between the OP and Secure Trust.

nottoolate

they allowed you to spread the cost of bills over 12 months and no more. on a rolling basis. so any specific bill or instalment paid on your behalf by them becomes a debt to them.

as such this would have become due and payable and an actionable cause of action if unpaid within 12 months or less.

not being inconsistent at all as to renew a right of action payment or acknowledgement must be made against the a specific liability and cause of action which is this sum due and no other. it was not so time continued to run against this.

sourcrates

I would say this is a very gray area, as I understand it, they have basically discovered unbilled account charges from 12 years ago.

It can't be SB. As they were not charged at the time, the charges were not billed until recently.
You could, quiet reasonably, argue that with the passage of time, they should of noticed this error long, long before now, and that because of this long delay, they should cancel the charge.

I would write to them stating this, are they regulated by the FCA ? If so, and you get no joy, take to the ombudsman, I thing you would have a very good chance of getting this debt wiped.

nottoolate

sourcrates wrote: »

It can't be SB. As they were not charged at the time, the charges were not billed until recently.

yes they can be as time runs from when they should have been due under the agreement. 11 years ago.

only reason they werent was because of a mistake by the company so by their mistake they were not are of aware of it.

postponement of the cause of action due to a mistake is only permitted under section 32 of the limitation act where the creditor could not have discovered it with due diligence. in this case they clearly had records that it was not paid but failed in their diligence to charge it to the account.

they cannot therefore rely on the mistake provisions of the act to postpone the start of the limitation period to the point when they finally discovered and billed it.

sourcrates

nottoolate wrote: »

yes they can be as time runs from when they should have been due under the agreement. 11 years ago.

only reason they werent was because of a mistake by the company so by their mistake they were not are of aware of it.

postponement of the cause of action due to a mistake is only permitted under section 32 of the limitation act where the creditor could not have discovered it with due diligence. in this case they clearly had records that it was not paid but failed in their diligence to charge it to the account.

they cannot therefore rely on the mistake provisions of the act to postpone the start of the limitation period to the point when they finally discovered and billed it.

Yes that could very well be true, no arguments there, but, as I said, it is a gray area, and in the end only a judge can decide this one way or another.

nottoolate

true but this sort of thing is exactly why there is that principle set in law. if they make a mistake by their own lack of diligence they still only have 6 years in which to discover it and take action.

probably a good idea to get a complaint in with the fos as well http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

besides any legalities coming after an unsecured debt 11 or 12 years after the fact is take the pee