Statute barred?

[alfie]

Re: Statute barred?

hi
A template collection letter has been received. Do you think that a statute barred letter should now be sent to them, or a request for the agreement.
The actual default date has gone by as well. Therefore, it would be whether the previous correspondence is an acknowledgment. Thankyou.

[MrsD]

Re: Statute barred?

none of our templates are an acknowledgement.

Is it a routine letter what does it say? are there any threats particularly of court action?

if not and you are sure, I'd just ignore it, I do regularly, all of ours are SB and still get the occasional letter

[panther12]

Re: Statute barred?

hi
A template collection letter has been received. Do you think that a statute barred letter should now be sent to them, or a request for the agreement.
The actual default date has gone by as well. Therefore, it would be whether the previous correspondence is an acknowledgment. Thankyou.

Alfie, you seem concerned about previous correspondence sent and whether it could be construed as an acknowledgment. If it wasn't a template from this site then I don't think anyone can answer that without knowing exactly what the letter contained word for word. If there is any doubt whatsoever regarding the SB status of a debt then unless a claim has been issued or you are certain that a claim is imminent following a letter before action, I would hold off from mentioning SB at this stage. If it's just the run of the mill threat-o-grams then I would just file away and ignore.

[alfie]

Re: Statute barred?

none of our templates are an acknowledgement.

Is it a routine letter what does it say? are there any threats particularly of court action?

if not and you are sure, I'd just ignore it, I do regularly, all of ours are SB and still get the occasional letter

Thanks for the replies.
It is a routine letter as before saying that a reduction is available get in touch. It will be ignored.
The letter sent to them, in response to their initial letter, was headed No Acknowledgment and just requested clarification and details of the referral/purchase mentioned and a copy of the assignment agreement mentioned. They then sent Notice of Assignment. No further letters have been sent to them.
It is a bit of concern, although not overly, having read that written correspondence may effect things. and seeing that it has gone this far and maybe wanting a bit of closure.

[Susie]

Re: Statute barred?

There's an ongoing dispute regards SB and we have a couple of cases going to court this year so we should hopefully get some clarity then. People base SB as being 6+ years from date of last payment or signed acknowledgement. It's actually +6 years from the Cause of Action (CoA)...I therefore say to class it as +6 years & 1 month from date of first missed payment.

However certain DCA's are trying to say that SB occurs from after default & termination - which does constitute a Cause of Action (CoA) - however if a lender waits a year (or even 5) before issuing the required s.87 default notice then in essence they can defer & manipulate SB indefinitely and that is our argument. We argue that technically the Act stipulates that SB occurs after the last CoA but that a lenders obligation to supply s.87 etc should be considered from the first opportunity allowed which would be approximately +24 days from the date you breached the agreement; ie the date you missed your first payment.

So in layman we argue that if you last paid in Jan 2009 but the lender didn't default you (s.87) until say Jan 2010 the official CoA occurred approximately +24 days from the ORIGINAL CoA created by you when you missed a payment which presumably in this example would be Feb 2009 meaning you add 24 days to this and the lender *COULD* default / terminate by mid March 2009 so regardless that they didn't do it (default you under s.87) until a year later in Jan 2010 would not create a valid cause of action. It'd remain as being around March 2009 as being the first opportunity to default & terminate after the breach occurred.

Basically, the lenders & DCA's are taking the piss. There's case law backing our argument and really, the original CoA occurs when the debtor breached the agreement and the secondary CoA is when the lender is lawfully able to default and terminate which is at least +24 days from the first Cause of Action regardless when they actually issued s.87 notifications.

In your case, therefore, we need the definitive date that the DN was issued and the definitive date of last payment & payment due date - upon which I'll tell you the exact date the account became SB'd.

Curiosity here, did the actual SB date ever get clarified by the courts? I am going by your last payment due + a month but was wondering if it had been confirmed?

- - - Updated - - -

There's an ongoing dispute regards SB and we have a couple of cases going to court this year so we should hopefully get some clarity then. People base SB as being 6+ years from date of last payment or signed acknowledgement. It's actually +6 years from the Cause of Action (CoA)...I therefore say to class it as +6 years & 1 month from date of first missed payment.

However certain DCA's are trying to say that SB occurs from after default & termination - which does constitute a Cause of Action (CoA) - however if a lender waits a year (or even 5) before issuing the required s.87 default notice then in essence they can defer & manipulate SB indefinitely and that is our argument. We argue that technically the Act stipulates that SB occurs after the last CoA but that a lenders obligation to supply s.87 etc should be considered from the first opportunity allowed which would be approximately +24 days from the date you breached the agreement; ie the date you missed your first payment.

So in layman we argue that if you last paid in Jan 2009 but the lender didn't default you (s.87) until say Jan 2010 the official CoA occurred approximately +24 days from the ORIGINAL CoA created by you when you missed a payment which presumably in this example would be Feb 2009 meaning you add 24 days to this and the lender *COULD* default / terminate by mid March 2009 so regardless that they didn't do it (default you under s.87) until a year later in Jan 2010 would not create a valid cause of action. It'd remain as being around March 2009 as being the first opportunity to default & terminate after the breach occurred.

Basically, the lenders & DCA's are taking the piss. There's case law backing our argument and really, the original CoA occurs when the debtor breached the agreement and the secondary CoA is when the lender is lawfully able to default and terminate which is at least +24 days from the first Cause of Action regardless when they actually issued s.87 notifications.

In your case, therefore, we need the definitive date that the DN was issued and the definitive date of last payment & payment due date - upon which I'll tell you the exact date the account became SB'd.

Curiosity here, did the actual SB date ever get clarified by the courts? I am going by your last payment due + a month but was wondering if it had been confirmed?

[alland]

Re: Statute barred?

Interesting question Susie, one that quite a few of us would like clarification on but unfortunately I don't think there is a definite ruling one way or the other yet.

[alfie]

Re: Statute barred?

good evening
has there been anything more regarding the posts above and a ruling.

another year has nearly gone by without anything significant received. apart from just a couple of template collection letters the same as before that have been received during that time, of which were ignored. the prior advice to ignore and forget was spot on. thanks.
maybe they know it is statute barred, as surely they would have done something more by now. what do you think?

[nightwatch]

Re: Statute barred?

there is normaly a flurry of letters sent out this time of year. It's just a way of showing they are thinking of you at party time xx

[alfie]

Re: Statute barred?

thanks. their anticipated correspondence then can be used as a fire lighter?