Statute Barred Debt Lowell (Part II)
Options
Comments
-
Crikey peeps read stepchange! It’s not a blooming myth! They cannot bring about legal action until an account has been defaulted.
They ain’t stupid it’s a multimillion pound international business that’s gorverned by FCA. Debt recovery is heavily monitored do you honestly think they would risk it if it was a statute barred account?! Didn’t think so0 -
GothicStirling wrote: »So doing a little research. Lowell's justification of cause of action (they say) can be found in chapter 7 of the FCA handbook. Can anyone point me to the clause, because I can't find anything in there about cause of action and expiry date of the loan.
As usual, that is complete nonsense.
There are however some relevant paragraphs which they ignore:
7.15.7. It is misleading for a firm to suggest or state that a customer may be the subject of court action for the sum of the statute barred debt when the firm knows, or reasonably ought to know, that the relevant limitation period has expired.
7.15.8. A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred.
A0 -
As usual, that is complete nonsense.
There are however some relevant paragraphs which they ignore:
7.15.7. It is misleading for a firm to suggest or state that a customer may be the subject of court action for the sum of the statute barred debt when the firm knows, or reasonably ought to know, that the relevant limitation period has expired.
7.15.8. A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred.
A
That's what I thought. All this is going in my witness statement.0 -
Debt_suvivor wrote: »Debt recovery is heavily monitored do you honestly think they would risk it if it was a statute barred account?! Didn’t think so
Maybe its because they are chancers, who would rather frighten debtors into paying rather than going to court?0 -
So, I've received WS from Lowell, with the same old 'Not Statute Barred.' Same evidence: Statement of Account and contract (minus full terms and conditions). No compliant default notice and nothing demonstrating that COA starts at the end of the fixed-term loan period from the contract. So I'm working on the basis that they're hoping I won't show and win by default.
Not happening.0 -
Okay, had a good read of Lowell's WS:
"The fixed terms on which the Agreements expired and accordingly no Default Notice in Consumer Credit Act prescribed form was required because before the Assignor sought to enforce, terminate or assign the benefit of account, the fixed terms under the Agreements expired and the full balances had fallen due in the normal course of time rather than by any term or condition providing that early repayment would fall due on default."
and
"For completeness the Claimant is nevertheless told by the Assignor and believes that a Default Notice was served on the 6th June 2012. No copies can now be located and this is not relied upon or relevant".
Can anyone explain that in English for me?0 -
GothicStirling wrote: »Okay, had a good read of Lowell's WS:
"The fixed terms on which the Agreements expired and accordingly no Default Notice in Consumer Credit Act prescribed form was required because before the Assignor sought to enforce, terminate or assign the benefit of account, the fixed terms under the Agreements expired and the full balances had fallen due in the normal course of time rather than by any term or condition providing that early repayment would fall due on default."
and
"For completeness the Claimant is nevertheless told by the Assignor and believes that a Default Notice was served on the 6th June 2012. No copies can now be located and this is not relied upon or relevant".
Can anyone explain that in English for me?
What they are trying to say is that they only became involved after the fixed term loan agreement ended, so there was no requirement to send a default notice, they then go on to say they believe one was sent anyway, but cannot now locate a copy of it.
Failure to send or provide a copy of a default notice, on its own, can be remedied by sending another one, so not on its own a major breech, but as Di said in earlier posts, the more you can trip them up on the better.I’m a Forum Ambassador and I support the Forum Team on the Debt free wannabe, Credit file and ratings, and Bankruptcy and living with it boards. If you need any help on these boards, do let me know. Please note that Ambassadors are not moderators. Any posts you spot in breach of the Forum Rules should be reported via the report button, or by emailing forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. All views are my own and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.For free non-judgemental debt advice, contact either Stepchange, National Debtline, or CitizensAdviceBureaux.Link to SOA Calculator- https://www.stoozing.com/soa.php The "provit letter" is here-https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2607247/letter-when-you-know-nothing-about-about-the-debt-aka-prove-it-letter0 -
Serving a default notice on 6 June 2012 should infer that there were missed payments starting somewhere between 6 December 2011 and 6 Mar 2012, if Provident followed ICO guidance
As your last payment was 1/11/2011 that just about fits. Maybe that payment was not actually due until the 6th of the month
Of course a court claim on or around 1/4/2018 is too late. If the only date they had was the default date they should have started the claim within 5.5 years.
Edit: do we know when they actually bought the debt from Provident? Can we say that it was perfectly possible for them to have started a claim within the relevant period?0 -
Serving a default notice on 6 June 2012 should infer that there were missed payments starting somewhere between 6 December 2011 and 6 Mar 2012, if Provident followed ICO guidance
As your last payment was 1/11/2011 that just about fits. Maybe that payment was not actually due until the 6th of the month
Of course a court claim on or around 1/4/2018 is too late. If the only date they had was the default date they should have started the claim within 5.5 years.
Edit: do we know when they actually bought the debt from Provident? Can we say that it was perfectly possible for them to have started a claim within the relevant period?
They bought the debt in August 2014, so had 3 years and 3 months in which to have started a claim.
Court claim is dated 3/4/2018.0 -
How about this as a good one. First Statement of account has the final payment as £10, the second one as 20p (both dated 1/11/11).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards