Strange Lowell Letter

Gordon_Hose

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Never mind what their letter says, they CAN get a CCJ. Don't be under any illusion about this. Statute barring is the point at which they cannot get a CCJ. And you agree it is not Statute Barred.

No they can't.

DandelionPatrol

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

No they can't.

Why not?

• It does not become statute barred until about 6 years from now, because OP is paying a token amount
• The letter saying that they cannot might offer an argument of estoppel, but that is a really hard argument to make and win
• As for OP's age at the time the card was taken out, well yes any debt incurred up to OP's 18th birthday may be unenforceable. But - and it's a fair guess that this is the case - debt incurred after that debt is enforceable.

I have yet to see a good reason for it not being enforceable.

Gordon_Hose

Why would a DCA say it wasn't enforceable in court then? DCA's rarely ever put a statement like that in writing.

Personally, I'd stop paying and see what they come up with. The debt has already been written off by the OC and sold on. Lowell can go swivel, scummy little rats.

DandelionPatrol

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Why would a DCA say it wasn't enforceable in court then? DCA's rarely ever put a statement like that in writing.

Personally, I'd stop paying and see what they come up with. The debt has already been written off by the OC and sold on. Lowell can go swivel, scummy little rats.

I have no idea why the DCA may say this, but we have no concrete info to support this position.

As you know full well, scummy little rats that they may be, you do not take at face value or rely on what a DCA says about the legal position.

In the back of my mind, this rings alarm bells. It may be that the DCA think that they will get no further than an order for £1/month if they take it to court while P is paying, but if OP stops, they will be able to get a much better judgement.

It amazes me that people here are so prepared to take the DCA statement at face value when it is entirely wrong against the rules about statute barring we all know by heart.

It is only statute barred if OP has neither paid towards the debt nor made an admission in writing at any point in a continuous period of 6 years.

Now it may be that the DCA cannot prove that anything was paid for a continuous period of 6 years starting before the default was recorded and finishing when OP started paying £1/week. But we would be speculating.

djpat1982

Thank you for your replies.

Doesn't seem to be a definitive answer - I guess their can't be really with such a strange letter.

I think I'm just going to keep the £1/mth going at least until the 6 years has passed and the default drops off my file. Then I may stop paying and see what the response is. If they start threatening court action or it looks like it is going that way I'll see if they will still honour the discount and pay that.

Marktheshark

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

• As for OP's age at the time the card was taken out, well yes any debt incurred up to OP's 18th birthday may be unenforceable. But - and it's a fair guess that this is the case - debt incurred after that debt is enforceable.

.

Unless a new CCA contract was signed after the OP was 18 then there was no contract.

Gordon_Hose

Just stop paying. They won't do anything.

DandelionPatrol

Marktheshark wrote: »

Unless a new CCA contract was signed after the OP was 18 then there was no contract.

Not true AFAICS. I was thinking that the age for a binding contract is 18. But it seems that the age for a contract can be as low as 7 and certain contracts for 'necessaries' can be binding.

And there is a big subtlety here, in that it is not the case that other contracts are not binding. They are binding but voidable up to the age of 18 and for a reasonable time afterwards. This is my take of http://www.inbrief.co.uk/contract-law/contract-with-minors.htm

Another view is that a contract with a minor must be 'ratified' after the age of 18 - ratification being acknowledgement that the debt is binding. This is my take of http://www.gillhams.com/site/library/legal_articles/minors_and_contractual_agreements.html

Overall, probably there is no CCA and perhaps the advice to OP should be to make the CCA request to close this off.

But if there is a CCA, then it is not clear to me that this would play in OP's favour in court. An argument that

1. There is a CCA albeit signed while OP was [just] a minor
2. The CCA was not actively voided by the OP before reaching 18, nor for X years thereafter
3. The contract was ratified by actual borrowing after the age of 18
4. The contract was further ratified by payments towards the debt

may well carry weight in court.

adamkonitz

djpat1982 wrote: »

Thank you for your replies.

Doesn't seem to be a definitive answer - I guess their can't be really with such a strange letter.

I think I'm just going to keep the £1/mth going at least until the 6 years has passed and the default drops off my file. Then I may stop paying and see what the response is. If they start threatening court action or it looks like it is going that way I'll see if they will still honour the discount and pay that.

I'd just stop paying.

But they won't go to court because over £1 a month, it isn't worth it.

Also, because you've got it in writing from them that they won't - it wouldn't look good for them if you were to produce that letter. And if you've still got the envelope that the letter came in, keep that with the letter as well.

Marktheshark

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Not true AFAICS. I was thinking that the age for a binding contract is 18. But it seems that the age for a contract can be as low as 7 and certain contracts for 'necessaries' can be binding.

And there is a big subtlety here, in that it is not the case that other contracts are not binding. They are binding but voidable up to the age of 18 and for a reasonable time afterwards. This is my take of http://www.inbrief.co.uk/contract-law/contract-with-minors.htm

Another view is that a contract with a minor must be 'ratified' after the age of 18 - ratification being acknowledgement that the debt is binding. This is my take of http://www.gillhams.com/site/library/legal_articles/minors_and_contractual_agreements.html

Overall, probably there is no CCA and perhaps the advice to OP should be to make the CCA request to close this off.

But if there is a CCA, then it is not clear to me that this would play in OP's favour in court. An argument that

1. There is a CCA albeit signed while OP was [just] a minor
2. The CCA was not actively voided by the OP before reaching 18, nor for X years thereafter
3. The contract was ratified by actual borrowing after the age of 18
4. The contract was further ratified by payments towards the debt

may well carry weight in court.

Hogwash I am afraid, contrafactual rights for necessities are possible, a credit card is not a necessitation right.
A credit agreement has to be signed by a person over 18 to be enforceable period.
Otherwise it is only binding on the party that was over 18.

The link you posted is actually "opinion" of a debt collecting solicitor firm and not correct legal legislation.