New Protocol for debt claimers

[cardiac arrest]

Comes in in 1st October.. has this been discussed anywhere, should we be interested, will it have any impact on debtors ?

There's something in the new rules about providing documents, will that by any chance tease out whether an original agreement is held or doesn't that really matter ?

[nightwatch]

I have found this on the internet ( written by solicitors for the opposition )

On 1st October 2017, a new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims will come into force.

The Protocol aims to encourage early communication between the creditor and debtor to identify whether there are any issues in dispute and enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to resort to issuing Court proceedings.

Any claims for the recovery of a debt should be set out in a Letter of Claim addressed to the debtor before Court proceedings are issued. The Letter of Claim should contain information regarding the amount of the debt, how the debt has arisen and the amount that is due to be paid.

If the debt is based upon a written agreement, the Letter of Claim should set out the parties to the written agreement and provide a copy of the written agreement.

If the debt arises from an oral agreement, the Letter of Claim should clearly set out the terms of that agreement, including, where possible, the words used and when and where the agreement was reached.

The new Protocol still requires the creditor to send a Letter of Claim, but now includes a basic form for the debtor to complete to respond.

Using the prescribed form, the debtor must confirm whether or not they admit that the debt is owed and if they accept that the debt is owed, how they propose to pay it.

The debtor should be allowed 30 days to complete the reply form and return it to the creditor.

If the debtor indicates in the reply form that they are seeking advice in connection with the debt, and that this cannot be obtained within 30 days, the creditor should allow “reasonable” extra time for the debtor to obtain that advice.

This means that the creditors cannot start Court proceedings until at least 30 days after the Letter of Claim has been sent and should allow the debtor a “reasonable” extension of time to respond, if required.

The focus of the new Protocol is to try and avoid the issue of Court proceedings. The parties are encouraged to consider the use of mediation or other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

If Court proceedings are issued, then the Court will take into account whether the parties have complied with the new Protocol. However, if there has been a minor infringement or non-compliance with the Protocol, then the Court is not likely to be too concerned with the breach, especially if the matter is urgent.

Where the debtor has responded to the Letter of Claim but agreement has not been reached, then the Protocol still requires the creditors to still give the debtor at least 14 days notice of their intention to start Court proceedings, unless there are exceptional circumstances in which urgent action is required.

The new Protocol could have an impact on creditor’s cash flow because of the required time limits to allow for a response to the Letter of Claim and recoverability of debts is now likely to be a slower process.


would be interesting to find out what a MINOR infringement, may be.?

[Still Waving]

I have just been looking at a few solicitors websites, and the common opinion seems to be that this is going to make matters more cumbersome, expensive and time consuming for creditors, especially in the small percentage of claims which are challenged.

[cardiac arrest]

I have found this on the internet ( written by solicitors for the opposition )

On 1st October 2017, a new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims will come into force.

The Protocol aims to encourage early communication between the creditor and debtor to identify whether there are any issues in dispute and enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to resort to issuing Court proceedings.

Any claims for the recovery of a debt should be set out in a Letter of Claim addressed to the debtor before Court proceedings are issued. The Letter of Claim should contain information regarding the amount of the debt, how the debt has arisen and the amount that is due to be paid.

If the debt is based upon a written agreement, the Letter of Claim should set out the parties to the written agreement and provide a copy of the written agreement.

If the debt arises from an oral agreement, the Letter of Claim should clearly set out the terms of that agreement, including, where possible, the words used and when and where the agreement was reached.

The new Protocol still requires the creditor to send a Letter of Claim, but now includes a basic form for the debtor to complete to respond.

Using the prescribed form, the debtor must confirm whether or not they admit that the debt is owed and if they accept that the debt is owed, how they propose to pay it.

The debtor should be allowed 30 days to complete the reply form and return it to the creditor.

If the debtor indicates in the reply form that they are seeking advice in connection with the debt, and that this cannot be obtained within 30 days, the creditor should allow “reasonable” extra time for the debtor to obtain that advice.

This means that the creditors cannot start Court proceedings until at least 30 days after the Letter of Claim has been sent and should allow the debtor a “reasonable” extension of time to respond, if required.

The focus of the new Protocol is to try and avoid the issue of Court proceedings. The parties are encouraged to consider the use of mediation or other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

If Court proceedings are issued, then the Court will take into account whether the parties have complied with the new Protocol. However, if there has been a minor infringement or non-compliance with the Protocol, then the Court is not likely to be too concerned with the breach, especially if the matter is urgent.

Where the debtor has responded to the Letter of Claim but agreement has not been reached, then the Protocol still requires the creditors to still give the debtor at least 14 days notice of their intention to start Court proceedings, unless there are exceptional circumstances in which urgent action is required.

The new Protocol could have an impact on creditor’s cash flow because of the required time limits to allow for a response to the Letter of Claim and recoverability of debts is now likely to be a slower process.


would be interesting to find out what a MINOR infringement, may be.?

Is that a true copy, or a cobbled up one from various sources supposedly in place at the time ??

[Still Waving]

Is that a true copy, or a cobbled up one from various sources supposedly in place at the time ??

I think they are referring to minor infringements of the Protocol.

[Still Waving]

The new Protocol does seem to place an onus on the recipient of a Letter Before Claim to complete a financial statement which, hitherto, creditors could not force one to to prior to Court ordering it.

[nightwatch]

mine would be quite interesting, I have no income, I am a kept woman.

[cardiac arrest]

I think they are referring to minor infringements of the Protocol.

I was referring to the section in bold near the top...

[cardiac arrest]

The new Protocol does seem to place an onus on the recipient of a Letter Before Claim to complete a financial statement which, hitherto, creditors could not force one to to prior to Court ordering it.

That's interesting, where did you get that from ?

[Still Waving]

That's interesting, where did you get that from ?

A blank Financial Statement form appears to be one of the documents the creditor is required to send with a Letter of Claim. Actually, I suppose one would only be expected to complete it if one ticks the "I will pay, but I need time to pay" box. Even then you tick Yes/No that you are providing a Financial Statement, so perhaps not mandatory, though the creditor would probably try to insist on seeing one. It is presented as "to help the business ensure you can afford your proposed repayments".

http://www.tltsolicitors.com/~/media...ber%202017.pdf

[nightwatch]

The problem with the Financial statement is, If they send it only in my name, can I claim that I don't have one and under the DPA I cannot divulge Hubbys income, ?

[cardiac arrest]

The problem with the Financial statement is, If they send it only in my name, can I claim that I don't have one and under the DPA I cannot divulge Hubbys income, ?

i always think these are an intrusion into a persons private affairs...and while a court can demand one (I guess) I don't see anyone else can. Even if a person claims they can not afford repayments, and are asked to 'prove it', who's to say you wouldn't make an error, who checks them..because they don't have access to your banking details do they ? If it all was a fair exchange of information we wouldn't be having to jump through hoops to get original copies of agreements, or find out exactly how much DC's paid to your OC for the account ? Yes, you can send a DSAR but even then they can say the agreement they sent is pretty much like the original to to satisfy a SAR.. I think this new protocol is going to make things a lot harder for debtors to duck and dive and delay matters, I don't know...maybe one of the experts could say ?

[Pat]

While I think we are intended to believe the new protocols are their to help us , there are enough exemptions to basically let a claimant get away with murder. So many claims are issued near the SB date that this will exempt them from having to wait and have all the docs- sorry m'lud if we waited any longer the limitations act would have kicked in

If a claim is in your name why are you expected to include household income?

[Still Waving]

While I think we are intended to believe the new protocols are their to help us , there are enough exemptions to basically let a claimant get away with murder. So many claims are issued near the SB date that this will exempt them from having to wait and have all the docs- sorry m'lud if we waited any longer the limitations act would have kicked in

I think that would only apply at the last gasp when they would normally be required to give 14 days notice of intent to start proceedings when agreement has not been reached. I don't think that gives them carte blanche to skip the intermediate stages of the process - that would likely be considered non-compliance with the protocols. They would need to get their act together and issue a Letter of Claim well before SB date.

[Pat]

I think that would only apply at the last gasp when they would normally be required to give 14 days notice of intent to start proceedings when agreement has not been reached. I don't think that gives them carte blanche to skip the intermediate stages of the process - that would likely be considered non-compliance with the protocols. They would need to get their act together and issue a Letter of Claim well before SB date.

I suspect you have too much faith in the system

Certainly in the short term there will be many claims coming to SB that will not allow time for the new process- we all know of claims that arrive just in time to avoid the limitations clock.