Can anybody help please

glentoran99

Anthorn wrote: »

I find that very interesting. Can you please provide a link to that information so I can follow it up. Many thanks.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=limiation+act+1980&l=1

Gaz83

Anthorn wrote: »

So in saying it's drivel you are denying two things both of which are pretty much common knowledge:


(1) If you admit a statute barred debt in writing it is no longer statute barred.


(2) Debts fall off the credit history 6 years from the default date.


Who is it posting the drivel then?

Er, very much you, sport.

Once a debt becomes statute barred it can't be "un-statute barred" at all.

Thanks for playing anyway, champ.

Nick_C

I think Anthorn is correct.

Three people have made strong assertions that Anthorn is wrong without attempting to back up their opinions with evidence or offer any indication of their expertise in this area. This is unhelpful.

Glentoran, did you actually read the content of the statute that you sarcastically linked to? Have a look at Section 29(5)

Acknowledgment and part payment

29 Fresh accrual of action on acknowledgment or part payment.

(5) … where any right of action has accrued to recover—
(a) any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim …
and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or payment.

See also the advice of the CAB at https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/help-with-debt/how-to-dispute-a-credit-debt/time-limits-for-recovering-debt-in-court/

Be careful when dealing with statute barred debt - if you or someone acting for you make a payment or write to the creditor to acknowledge the debt, the time limit will reset and the creditor will be able to go to court to make you pay.

A telephone call is not an acknowledgment of the debt so this may be the best way to contact the creditor initially.

Those people who have tried to ridicule Anthorn; would you care to put forward the evidence that shows why you believe you are right and Anthorn is wrong? Or perhaps just withdraw your claims and apologise.

It is very dangerous to present an ill informed opinion as fact when advising others on here. Your advice could have caused the OP to have inadvertently made their debt enforceable once more.

glentoran99

Nick_C wrote: »

I think Anthorn is correct.

Three people have made strong assertions that Anthorn is wrong without attempting to back up their opinions with evidence or offer any indication of their expertise in this area. This is unhelpful.

Glentoran, did you actually read the content of the statute that you sarcastically linked to? Have a look at Section 29(5)



See also the advice of the CAB at https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/help-with-debt/how-to-dispute-a-credit-debt/time-limits-for-recovering-debt-in-court/



.

yes I did and it quite clearly

says here 29(7)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58

but a right of action, once barred by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent acknowledgment or payment.

game set and match I think


the CAB advice is correct, if you acknowledge the debt the time limt resets, but not after the time limit has already expired.

Nick_C

The reference to 29(7) is helpful, thank you.

I agree. (I stopped at Para 6!)

I think the CAB advice is confusing as it seems to suggest that a statute barred debt can be reactivated.

glentoran99

Nick_C wrote: »

The reference to 29(7) is helpful, thank you.

I agree. (I stopped at Para 6!)

I think the CAB advice is confusing as it seems to suggest that a statute barred debt can be reactivated.

I would agree, I would imagine its referring to those who's debts may be almost statute barred and writing to them will mean the clock goes back to 6 years while also alerting the creditor to the fact,

Anthorn

Thank you for your support, Nick. I did suspect that I was wrong which is why I asked for the link.


But whatever, what damage would be done if the OP followed my advice to ignore the threats he was receiving?


And my advice that debts fall off the credit history 6 years from the default date so there would be nothing related on there to check was correct unless someone wants to dispute that.


Anyway, good discussion from which we have learned but such a shame that certain posters possibly not acquained with the etiquette of debates made it personal and abusive.

cajef

Anthorn wrote: »

Anyway, good discussion from which we have learned but such a shame that certain posters possibly not acquained with the etiquette of debates made it personal and abusive.

If you get your facts right before posting incorrect advice and then arguing that you are correct when everyone else informs you that you are wrong, then maybe you would not leave yourself open to criticism, also this is an open forum so get used to people making things personal when you are so adamant that you are right when you are not.

Anthorn

cajef wrote: »

If you get your facts right before posting incorrect advice and then arguing that you are correct when everyone else informs you that you are wrong, then maybe you would not leave yourself open to criticism, also this is an open forum so get used to people making things personal when you are so adamant that you are right when you are not.

Sorry to have to break the news to you. I understand your weakness in attempting to claim a victory which is not yours to claim and belongs to another, but the discussion has finished now and we've moved on. I'm posting elsewhere now. Try searching "credit unions" without the quotes

cajef

Anthorn wrote: »

Sorry to have to break the news to you. I understand your weakness in attempting to claim a victory which is not yours to claim and belongs to another, but the discussion has finished now and we've moved on. I'm posting elsewhere now. Try searching "credit unions" without the quotes

Oh dear you don't learn do you.

Still giving out bad and incorrect advice in other threads.