Debt - Statute Barred?

Money18

Thank you Fatbelly I’ll send a SAR and see what that brings up.

Re - You may find that the claim was struck out.
- If it was struck out does that mean they can't re-apply for a CCJ on this debt - or could they still attempt to do so?

Money18

Hi CakeCrusader thank you for your reply. I already sent the Statute Barred letter before their last letter.

Re: "correct. The Limitations Act gives them a period of 6 years to enforce the debt through the courts. If they don't do this within the specified time fram then they can't do it later."

- they did start legal proceedings to enforce the debt within the 6 years.
- they’re disputing that it is in fact Statute Barred because even though they didn’t obtain a CCJ, they did in fact start legal proceedings before the 6 years was up even though they didn’t continue with proceedings in the end..

Both ND & CAB advisors gave their advice above based on what I told them - that no CCJ has been awarded - so their advice is conflicting.

No payment or written acknowledgement of the debt has been made for 6 years following the default.

I’m trying to determine if legally what they’re disputing is correct or not?

Money18

Hi WhenIam64 thank you for your reply. I'm just trying to figure out how to insert the letter image into the post as it's not at a url address but on my computer.. please bare with me..

Money18

Hi WhenIam64 thank you for your reply. It says as a new user I can't even post links - their reason - to stop spammers.. Please find the link below to the letter - just copy and paste into your browser..

dropbox.com/s/72fblc8e20u7pck/2019-12-12%2009.50.55%20copy%202.jpg

I would very much appreciate if you could help determine if it is legally statute barred or not..

WhenIam64

Much better seeing the letter than trying to guess

1. If you note that the comments by Cabot are qualified e.g. "I believe ..." so they are not themselves being definite.

2. No solicitor would ever give you a definite as there is no certainty with law. All County Court decisions are BoP (balance of probabilities) or 51%. So solicitors will hedge their bets.

3. The Doyle case moved the goal posts as the law is often clarified as judges prefer to work with more certainty than 51% - which is why you have higher courts / senior judges.

4. The best description for the letter is their excuse to hound you. Once you have had 3 of these letters, raise a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman on the basis that Cabot are mistating your legal position. Cabot will either back off, or try court. If it is the latter, then it will be an interesting case with loads of people wanting in on the action i.e. another Doyle.

5. As an aside if MCS started legal proceedings in 2013 why did they not follow through then. There are tracing services which can find even the most difficult to find people. Seems MCS/Cabot couldn't be ar*** to follow up and are trying it on.

fatbelly

That's a very weasily letter.

It does not clearly state 'a court claim was started'. That the letter was returned marked 'gone away' should not have deterred them as it is perfectly legitimate to get judgement at the last known address, then pass the matter to a DCA to trace. In fact some debt buyers still make a habit of this, and have definitely been doing this for many years, although it is being frowned upon now. Certainly Cabot were one of those organisations in 2013.

They do not state the court used nor quote the court reference. I know at the time many organisations would send a mock-up of a court claim, saying 'this is what we will do next.' I think your plan to SAR them is a good one.

If it turns out they did start a genuine claim, the question is then 'what happened with it?' Did they ask for discontinuance or for it to be stayed? Did the court strike it out? Again, once you have the court used and the court reference you can find this out.

The fact that they state that 'we are not looking to litigate any further currently' may mean that the claim was struck out, if it existed at all, and that it is now at the point where any claim could be defended as time-barred and so they have nowhere to go with it.

If they are confident in their position that 'the account is no longer subject to the Limitation Act' (note Limitation is singular not plural as in their letter) then they should continue the court claim that they believe is still valid and active.

Edit: you are right that their dates make no sense. It is almost as if someone chucked some dates in there off the top of their head.

Money18

Hi fatbelly thank you for your reply and advice.

Would this be ok to send as the SAR letter? -

Dear Sir/Madam

Subject access request ( Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) )

Name XXX
Address XXX

Previous Address: XXX

Alleged Account Reference: XXX

Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law relating to myself, including”

• Copy of the credit agreement
• Notice of default
• Notice of assignment
• Summary of the account
• Copy of Court N1 form issued
• Court claim reference
• any other information you hold of me

It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month.

If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member.

Yours faithfully
Name

Money18

Hi WhenIam64 thank you for your reply and interesting points.

fatbelly

I think I would just ask them for 'all information that you hold about me including all information concerning the above alleged account'

If they don't send one of those important items you list, you can assume that it doesn't exist

Money18

Ok thank you Fatbelly I'll send it tomorrow..