Lowell (CohenCramer) Notice of Pending Legal Action (Statute Barred Debt)

Anthorn

fatbelly wrote: »

A debt is statute barred if there is a six year period when it is not acknowledged by payment or in writing.

Once statute barred it cannot be unbarred.

When a claim is issued, the clock stops ticking.

The point where the clock initially starts ticking is called the 'cause of action' and it is often this that gets debated at court.

In the OP's case that point is maybe just 6 years ago and there has been no acknowledgement since.

If the OP does not respond to the PAP letter, court action can be started in 30 days. If they respond as I indicated (not acknowledging the debt), the creditor must first respond and provide the items requested, which will slow them down and give more chance of there being that 6-year gap. They must wait for either 30 days after the form is received or 30 days after supplying the articles requested.

It is best to reply by 'signed for' delivery. At this stage you do not complete the statement of means form as that in itself could be taken as acknowledgement,

This is National Debtline's take on it

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/pre-action-protocol-for-debt/county-court-protocol.aspx

I already linked to the National Debtline page in my post. My main point very briefly restated here is that it has not yet been claimed that the debt is statute barred. Hence my advice to obtain National Debtline's template letter. My other point is that if the OP did not inform the creditor of the change of address the "clock" may not have started ticking in the first place. If the OP fills out the form and sends it back to Lowell they are admitting the debt in writing which is to be avoided.

Perhaps you should read my post again.

It all depends on Lowell's response. The OP can argue till s/he is blue in the face that the debt is statute barred but if Lowell think it isn't statute barred the OP may well have to argue the point in the County Court.

fermi

Anthorn wrote: »

If the OP fills out the form and sends it back to Lowell they are admitting the debt in writing which is to be avoided.

If they do as fatbelly indicated, then they would not be doing so.

Anthorn wrote: »

My other point is that if the OP did not inform the creditor of the change of address the "clock" may not have started ticking in the first place.

Also not true.

Concealment or hiding your whereabouts does not prevent time from running and a debt becoming statute barred.

A creditor has the option of starting proceedings within the time limit even if they do not have a current address, by using your last known one.

Money Advice Trust debt advisor training quotes.

'It is for claimants to prove that they could not reasonably have discovered the facts concealed by the defendant (Paragon Finance v Thakerar 1999). The mere fact that a defendant cannot be traced, with the result that the claimant does not commence proceedings, does not prevent (a cause of action from accruing and) time from running. Even where a person is deliberately hiding from a claimant the 'concealment' provisions relate only to concealment of the cause of action and not to cases where debtors conceal themselves from the claimant (Lowsley v Forbes 1999)

PixelPound

Anthorn wrote: »

If you reply in writing and particularly if you admit the debt in writing the debt is not statute barred or no longer statute barred. So basically don't fill out the form. It's a particular ploy of debt collectors to get state barred debts admitted so that the debt can then be enforced.

The PAP was brought out by the government because so many CCJ's were been given without understanding whether there was any disputes beforehand and promote alternative dispute routes - I would think most debt collectors preferred the old system of LBA. Remember the PAP method can extend the time before a claims form is issued, such as the request or documents, wanting to seek debt advice.

fatbelly

Anthorn wrote: »

Perhaps you should read my post again.

I have done.

I've also read both threads from the OP. They need to give themselves the best chance of a statute barred defence when the court claim comes, which means delaying the process as much as possible.

I do think it's highly likely now that there will be a court claim. We are already in the claim process as it now exists.

Anthorn

nic_c wrote: »

The PAP was brought out by the government because so many CCJ's were been given without understanding whether there was any disputes beforehand and promote alternative dispute routes - I would think most debt collectors preferred the old system of LBA. Remember the PAP method can extend the time before a claims form is issued, such as the request or documents, wanting to seek debt advice.

Sounds like a load of PAP to me lol.

Anyway you quoted my post about a statute barred debt and then went on to discuss a CCJ which I mentioned by implication only in passing.

fermi

fatbelly wrote: »

I have done.

I've also read both threads from the OP. They need to give themselves the best chance of a statute barred defence when the court claim comes, which means delaying the process as much as possible.

I do think it's highly likely now that there will be a court claim. We are already in the claim process as it now exists.

Absolutely correct.

GothicStirling: Please note fatbelly's advice. It is his job to know his stuff on this.

Anthorn

fermi wrote: »

If they do as fatbelly indicated, then they would not be doing so.

They would be replying about the debt and therefore will be admitting the debt in writing. The first step is to notify the statute barred status to the current creditor (more accurately the current owner of the debt). Hence my advice to get the statute barred template letter. Conversely if it's not necessary to inform the statute barred status why do debt advice organisations including National Debtline produce them?

fermi wrote: »

Also not true.

Concealment or hiding your whereabouts does not prevent time from running and a debt becoming statute barred.

A creditor has the option of starting proceedings within the time limit even if they do not have a current address, by using your last known one.

Money Advice Trust debt advisor training quotes.

It's a grey area admittedly and a matter to be decided by the court. One of the rules of the Limitation Act 1980 in deciding whether a debt can be enforced states that the creditor has not sought to recover the debt in the last 6 years but how can they do that if the debtor has run off and not informed the creditor of their new address? My guess is that will be used by Lowell to great effect. The court then may decide whether the creditor in the circumstances took reasonable steps to recover the debt.

A possible defence of the debtor is that they informed other parties of their new address which was communicated to the credit agencies and appeared as a linked address in their credit history and it's not their fault that the creditor did not notice that linked address.

Lastly if our laws and regulations covered all eventualities without exception we wouldn't need courts of law!

fermi

Anthorn wrote: »

They would be replying about the debt and therefore will be admitting the debt in writing.

No they would not, as they would be disputing it (option C).

Anthorn wrote: »

It's a grey area admittedly and a matter to be decided by the court. One of the rules of the Limitation Act 1980 in deciding whether a debt can be enforced states that the creditor has not sought to enforce the debt in the last 6 years but how can they do that if the debtor has run off and not informed the creditor of their new address?

Enforcement is the issuing of a court claim for purpose of LA1980, nothing else, and a creditor can do that at any point using the last known address.

fermi

GothicStirling: If you doubt fatbelly's suggestions (he is a professional debt advisor who deals with this day by day by day), then talk to

- http://nationaldebtline.org

and maybe post on

- http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/forum.php (who specialise in just this sort of thing)

GothicStirling

Thanks for all the advice. I've read Debtline's info, and it clearly states that by only ticking option 1, would I restart the 6 year clock. Should I be asking for payment information from them as well, as I have a sneaking suspicion that they don't have this info from Provident?