Enough now

[Gerry Jemitus]

The relevant section is '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.'

Sending statements is not classed as demanding payments, and you have to tell them that you are not going to pay because the debt is statute barred. However, as per my previous post, if you notify them of this, then they should stop.

[Warwick65]

To be honest I wouldn't worry. I still get an annual statement from Santander. Only downside is that I can't use them for anything else as they still own the account. Even RBS have sold my accounts on.

[Warwick65]

But surely sending statements when the debt is SB could be seen as deception which is in breach of Conc 7.15.5 ' A firm must endeavour to ensure that it does not mislead a customer as to the customer's rights and obligations.' as most people would see a statement as a request for lawful payment.

[PlanB]

surely sending statements when the debt is SB could be seen as deception which is in breach of Conc 7.15.5 ' A firm must endeavour to ensure that it does not mislead a customer as to the customer's rights and obligations.' as most people would see a statement as a request for lawful payment.

I agree.

Especially if the statement showed a negative balance which appears to be the case with this forum member.

Di

[Gerry Jemitus]

No, sending a statement is not misleading, nor is it a demand for money. It is what it says, a statement of account. Being statute barred does not mean the debt has disappeared, just that the creditor cannot enforce the debt. They may choose to write it off their books, or keep it on as an asset, for tax reasons etc. Hence the statement is correct. They are allowed to ask for payment, unless you notify them that the debt is statute barred, that you are not going to pay, and that they do not contact you. What they cannot do is demand payment suggesting that failure to pay could lead to legal action - that would be misleading.

[PlanB]

No, sending a statement is not misleading, nor is it a demand for money. It is what it says, a statement of account. Being statute barred does not mean the debt has disappeared, just that the creditor cannot enforce the debt. They may choose to write it off their books, or keep it on as an asset, for tax reasons etc. Hence the statement is correct. They are allowed to ask for payment, unless you notify them that the debt is statute barred, that you are not going to pay, and that they do not contact you. What they cannot do is demand payment suggesting that failure to pay could lead to legal action - that would be misleading.

I think Warwick meant it could be perceived as misleading from the debtor's point of view not a legal point of view

A bill is a bill is a bill.

In this case the OP has already settled the bill in 2011 (by mutual agreement) and has a paper trail to prove it.

Di

[Gerry Jemitus]

Warwick said 'sending statements when the debt is SB could be seen as deception which is in breach of Conc 7.15.5'I was just pointing out that that is not the correct interpretation of Conc 7.15.5 It's all academic, but while a bill is a bill, and a statement is a statement, a statement is not a bill, certainly not from a legal perspective, as you should know.

[PlanB]

while a bill is a bill, and a statement is a statement, a statement is not a bill, certainly not from a legal perspective, as you should know.

Yes of course I know that since I work for a law firm.

But people in debt who may be vulnerable don't know that so may feel self-pressured to pay.

In fact the Statute of Limitations may be something they've never even heard of so wouldn't even question whether a statement is a bill which they should pay or not.

Di

[Warwick65]

Let’s make it clear I said COULD and as the FCA acknowledge people in debt COULD be classed as vulnerable. It’s about fairness and transparency. Most businesses only do things that somehow enhance their bottom line as I’m sure you appreciate.

[Gerry Jemitus]

Yes, absolutely - debtors can in some instances be classed as vulnerable. However, that doesn't change the legal situation, it is just a potential argument that could be used in court should it become necessary. I am just trying to make the position clear for anyone reading the thread, from a legal viewpoint, which is the only one that is relevant in court.

Conc 7.15 states:

CONC 7.15.2 In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a statute barred debt still exists and is recoverable. This is the point I have previously made, that even whena debt has become statute barred, creditors are still allowed to recover the debt. Payments made on a statute barred debt are not subsequently recoverable, as a rule, as they are regarded by the court as 'voluntary' payments.

CONC 7.15.5 If the lender or owner has been in regular contact with the customer during the limitation period, the firm may continue to attempt to recover the debt.
This is the reason that they send statements - if they stay in contact with the customer, it keeps the debt recoverable.

CONC 7.15.6 A firm must endeavour to ensure that it does not mislead a customer as to the customer's rights and obligations. Sending a statement is not misleading as this is allowed as per the above.

CONC 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. This is the helpful section in this case, but it only applies AFTER the customer has informed the creditor as stated.

In normal English - when a debt becomes statute barred, it does not cease to exist (except in Scotland) and may still be recoverable by the creditor. They must not suggest or threaten legal or enforcement action, but they can ask for payment. To stop this, all the customer has to do is to write to them stating the debt is statute barred, they are not going to get paid, and to cease contact. Simple.

[Rosebud]

I wonder if someone could answer a couple of questions for me ? I agreed a partial settlement with Santander in 2011 , I have been getting statements from them ever since ? They have written off the remaining balance , just wondering why I still get the statements.

Another question , the last payment I made via CCA was October 2018, when does the 6 year period commence?

Many thanks.

Just by way of update, I have sent a letter to this company explaining the situation, not had any response back from them. Will wait and see next year I suppose.

[Rosebud]

So now debts , I will complete one entry for each.

Type of account : credit card ( previously MBNA )
date commenced : ? I haven’t got any documentation , but it will be before July 2008.
Approx balance : £2500.00
Date last paid: before July 2008
On DMP , running from July 2008
Status : default
Account owner : Idem servicing

06/09: letter from MBNA re my ‘financial difficulties ‘.
10/11: letter from MBNA re my ‘financial difficulties ‘.
10/11: Default notice, to remedy this ‘breach’ need a payment of £5402.44
11/11: letter from MBNA informing me that my account has been terminated £7366.05 outstanding.
01/12: welcome letter from Idem
01/13: statement
01/14: statement
01/15: statement

10/17: letter sent to Idem offer F&F
10/17: letter from Idem stating they are unable to accept F&F offer.

01/18: statement
09/18: letter from Idem thanking me for my recent CCA request.
10/18: letter from Idem stating they are unable to supply me with a copy of CCA so UNENFORCEABLE, SAFELY FILED.

10/18 letter received today from MBNA advising me that they should have sent me a Notice of Sum in arrears ,
in 2009, as a result of an error that didn’t happen.
So to put things ‘right’ they are advising me now. They also included an ‘arrears’ leaflet.
Not bad really is it only 9 years later than when I should have received it.

12/2018: letter from Idem servicing advising that there is no agreed payment plan in place for my account. Unless we are able to rectify this within the next 7 days my account will be reviewed for further action...

PLAN: file letter

Letter dated 1/19 from Idem stating that the full balance is now due, it is essential that I make contact with them within 7 days to solve this and prevent further recovery action. PLAN : file

letter dated 1/19: statement

letter dated 1/19, ‘we are increasingly concerned that we have not been able to speak with you about your account, they would like to understand my situation so they can place me on the most appropriate payment arrangement. Failure to do so may result in
1) a representative may be instructed to visit your property
2) my account may be placed with an external debt collection agency.

PLAN : File

April 19: letter

March 2019 : letter received from Idem, they advised that they have been trying to get hole of me on a number of occasions to discuss my account.

02/2019
Letter received from Idem , requesting that I make contact within 10 days as they have attempted to contact me on a number of occasions. Should they not receive any contact then ‘we will’ appoint an external company , Resolvecall, to visit my property, to regain contact so my current financial situation can be discussed and repayment plan put in place ....

PLAN : Do I need to respond to this or just file ?

Feb 2019 : letter received from Resolvecall they advise that they have been instructed to contact me. Idem state that they have not been able to contact me .......if I do not contact them within 7 days this ‘may’ lead to a visit by one of the representatives...... PLAN : FILE

March 2019: letter received from Idem ‘ due to the non-payment on my account they have instructed Wescot Credit Services to collect the outstanding balance . ‘ you will be contacted by them to come to a mutually acceptable arrangement... Plan : File

April 19: letter received from wescot at new address. They are requesting confirmation of same.
Plan File

April 19: letter received from wescot advising that they are a specialist debt collection agency , they have been instructed to make contact with me.
Plan : file

October 2019 , letter received from Idem stating that the account has been purchased by Hoist Finance UK Holdings 3 Limited.

October19: letter of assignment received from Hoist Finance.

October 2019 : welcome letter received from Robinson Way

NOV 19: Letter received from RW offering me options.

NOV 19: Further letter from RW offering to tackle this together.

DEC 19: letter offering me a discount.

DEC 19: letter asking for contact

DEC 19: letter from RW sent to my new address. FILED.

7/9/21: letter received from HoistFinance advising account will be passed to Resolvecall to ‘help me get back on track ‘. Filed away.

17/9/21: letter received from Resolvecall , advising that they have been instructed to visit me at home , to put me back in touch with HoistFinance. What would you advise please?

Sept 21 : SWID sent

September 21 : letter received from Resolvecall advising account returned to client.

[The Tech Clerk]

No need to speak they leave card call office. Another for bin

[Rosebud]

No need to speak they leave card call office. Another for bin

thank you for your reply.
My husband isn’t aware of this, so I would prefer if I could prevent them calling.
Shall I send a threat of doorstop visit / harassment letter ?

[The Tech Clerk]

Send it no guarantee