Lowell (again...)

aymz1983

This is their response to our 'debt is statute barred' letter.

"Please note, this debt is not Statute Barred.

Your comments have been noted but we would advise you that the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 is not applicable in this case. We would refer you to section 29 (7) of the limitation Act 1980 which states "….. A current Period of limitation may be repeatedly extended under this section by further acknowledgment or payment."


As the default date for this account was 9th October 2007, the first payment to us was on 7th June 2013, less than six years from this date. Therefore your debt still exists and legally we are within our rights to continue to ask you for repayment.

Please note, collections activity will continue unless a repayment plan is set."

Where to go from here? They're saying 6 years starts from default date, not last payment made towards the debt, as I've read on here. Much confused! Do I send another letter?

Thanks

rizla_king

Just because Lowells are lying morons, doesn't mean you have to pay them or pay attention to them. Ask at http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/forum.php for more details on when the 6 years starts. Depends on the type of account.

sourcrates

Typical Lowell toilet paper basically !!!!


Time runs from your last payment, or written acknowledgement, not from the date of default, keep that letter, you may need it as evidence at some point.
Write back to the Muppets pointing this out, and tell them to get stuffed.

Stevie_Palimo

I thought it was 6 years with no contact so forget default dates and look at the payment date here which was within a few years that should mean they are correct and can still pursue this.


I may be wrong but pretty sure the above would stand here.

sourcrates

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

I thought it was 6 years with no contact so forget default dates and look at the payment date here which was within a few years that should mean they are correct and can still pursue this.


I may be wrong but pretty sure the above would stand here.

They are quoting the date the first payment was made to them, and are using the default date as a means of justifying what they are saying is correct, when in reality, the last payment date to the account, before Lowell became involved, would of been at least 2/3 months before the default date, thus the account will be statute barred.

rizla_king

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

I thought it was 6 years with no contact so forget default dates and look at the payment date here which was within a few years that should mean they are correct and can still pursue this.


I may be wrong but pretty sure the above would stand here.

If already statute barred a recent payment cant unbar it though. So if it was statute barred befrore the payment a few years ago its still barred now.

aymz1983

Will look to see what the legal beagles have to say as well (not that I doubt you all!) - just gets annoying. Can see how people get sucked into believing it all though.
As before, thank you all!

fermi

(1) Default date on your credit file has no meaning as far as it being statute barred.

(2) The date of a default notice under s87 of the Consumer Credit Act - a legal notice sent by letter - can be argued, in cases where they have no right to demand payment until issued, to be the start of the 6 years.

(1) and (2) are not the same thing, although both happen to use the word "default". Confusing normally.

They are presumably arguing (2).

Whether the County Courts in general are prepared to accept or reject the argument of (2) is a bit up in the air at the moment. Most seeming would not, but at least one recent account exists where they did. County court judges can make mistakes though.

So if that is what they are arguing, then getting some more legally focused opinion may be a good idea.

MakeAChange_2

Hi all,
well I did not know that!

I have lots of letters from this company, and they are non-stop! part of the reason for joining today, I shall be hanging around, iv learnt lots all ready today by just being nosey on this site lol

DandelionPatrol

Previous thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5318050

aymz, please stick to the one thread for the same issue

fatbelly

aymz1983 wrote: »

As the default date for this account was 9th October 2007, the first payment to us was on 7th June 2013, less than six years from this date. Therefore your debt still exists and legally we are within our rights to continue to ask you for repayment.

To quote from your previous post

Long story short, he's been arguing with them for a year now, he's only just got statements from Welcome which show that his last payment to them was 25/05/2007.

That means it is very close - if that last payment was a contractual payment made on the last possible day (lot of assumptions there), then the cause of action would be 25 June 2007, when the next payment was not made, and the account was 18 days short of being time barred when the 7th June 2013 payment was made .

However, if the cause of action had been earlier, and the 25/5/07 payment was non-contractual (like a payment under a debt management plan or an arrangement) then the account was already time barred by about 12 days when the 7th June 2013 payment was made.