Start of my diary

[Mrreese6018]

Also be absolutely sure of your SB date. It may not always be the one that one thinks it is. Be sure of when each debt was officially defaulted.

Sorry for a numpty question but the statute barred date is the 6 years and a day after the date that is recored on your credit file or could the date on the default notice be different ?

[Roger]

But whilst being cautious there is something really positive you can do.

Your target month is February so you are within the last six months!

Now by sending a SAR to the Original Debtor (this isn't an admission of debt) this will give you the latest and up todate information on what is and isn't on the their files, including possible correspondence between Original Debtor and DBA 's.
The SAR will give you facts and knowledge to make an informed decision re a mortgage!

Applying for a mortgage is different from paying a mortgage! A mortgage is a Priority Debt (you have got to live somewhere) and these plus living costs , energy, rates etc. Rank above the unsecured DEBTS!!

Its good to see you are thinking positive going forward its what makes AAD so special!

[Matty B]

After reading many different posts on different forums (or is it fora- GCSE Latin is in the back of my mind) and looking at my experience I would urge caution because:

1) It seems that debt owners check credit files and they may think if you suddenly have credit cards you have money to pay them...
2) Statute barred is a moveable feast - look at my post earlier, did a letter I sent in 2015 acknowledge the debt? also as Roger said, I think limitations runs from when the default notice ran out although I read a lawyer somewhere say if there was a long time between stopping paying and issuing a default notice then unfair reationships come into play- whatever they are
3) Then we have default notices themselves, what are they , when are they valid, do they have to produce one - it's all above my pay grade

In summary I would be careful. maybe wait until you are 100% sure it is statute barred before applying for credit

me- I have enough credit to get myself in a right old mess again if I am not careful - now do I need that new iphone?- they are offering 0% finance

[Still Waving]

Also be absolutely sure of your SB date. It may not always be the one that one thinks it is. Be sure of when each debt was officially defaulted.

[Timewilltell]

I would personally proceed with caution, remember these leeches will keep one eye on your credit file etc and a mortgage could spark an interest to push a claim- whether they can legitimately win or not seems irrelevant to them, which could cause you more hassle.
Once SB then there isn’t a lot they can do as I understand it, so you are fairly safe to get on with your life?

[Strepsi]

Really looking forward to advice, which won't then turn into something that takes on life of it's own!!

Anyway in February of next year we will become SB. The light is getting that little brighter at the end of the tunnel.

We have kept our head down for the duration....

Anyway we are now thinking of life when SB'd. What we are wanting to do is move to a bigger house, our salary will allow us to do this. We aren't talking a massive house in the leafy suburbs!

I/we have a few questions, one of them; when could we realistically start fixing our credit score, for example take out CC before SB date?

Could we realistically apply for mortgage before our SB date? If not why not.

I know the advice is keep your head down, I completely understand this. I could be missing loads of different things, but as I see it the window of opportunity is getting smaller for claimants to issue a claim.

At the moment there is one that Joanna Connolly is dealing with, one is a possible. There are no others that are close to becoming a claim.

Just would like some direction on this, without it turning into a bun fight!

Sorry for the long post...

[Never-In-Doubt]

Whilst I respect your views Niddy, I can’t say that my experience goes along with them. I do not wish to divulge on a forum the details but it’s fair to say I had concerns after my conversation. So opted to play the delay game, as it is so close to SB, I may have to review this if the heat is turned up but who knows the way these leeches are organised I may be ok?

Good luck - let's hope you get to SB but if not, you know we are here and will offer help based on your specific situation.

[Timewilltell]

Whilst I respect your views Niddy, I can’t say that my experience goes along with them. I do not wish to divulge on a forum the details but it’s fair to say I had concerns after my conversation. So opted to play the delay game, as it is so close to SB, I may have to review this if the heat is turned up but who knows the way these leeches are organised I may be ok?

[Never-In-Doubt]

You are right, we do aim to achieve SB but if a claim is issued prior then the member must do whatever to avoid judgment. So instead of diving in and suggesting they file a defence that they may not win with, we always offer the legal advice as a recourse.

Of course it's not free. It can't be. We must earn a living but the fee offered is always smaller and can be paid over instalments IF the member chose to defend. The solicitor won't just agree to take a case for money. They will need to be satisfied that the defendant has a chance of success. All initial conversations are free via AAD so what's the harm in talking to the actual experts prior to jumping in with two feet and making matters worse?

I understand your specific position, however we don't advocate people try and defend a claim on the blind. What harm is it doing talking to a solicitor first?

Yes the law is an ass, in many ways and it's vile that smaller claimants aren't afforded the same resources as larger ones but that's a whole different argument, for another day.

So long as AAD exists, we'll ALWAYS offer legal access to members and strongly urge anyone who receives a claim or any legal threat to have a free chat with the solicitor prior to completing the claim defence.

It's what stands us apart and makes us not only the best & most successful consumer forum but also the most unique.

It's never wise to try and fight fire with fire. Why not have a chat and see what options, likelihood of success you may have first?

If a claim isn't received then yes, of course always fight it out as long as possible in the hope of achieving SB.

[Timewilltell]

Isn’t this complexity or fragility of the legal system? For each and every argument there is an opposing argument, therefore at best you can only hope that the judge finds in your favour and he/she is human also and will formulate their own opinion/judgement, based upon what has been presented before them, to their own best understanding for no one is all knowing of everything. This leads to many interpretations of the same article?
And whilst it is also true that solicitors can counter with an appeal etc there is no guarantee of success, and what we have to consider is yes whilst it is their job to argue it is not them that pay for it, this burden falls upon the shoulder of the Client that fails, whilst many companies can stand a few grand here and there in legal fees it’s the ordinary person that may not, this therefore is probably the biggest uncertainty and concern for the ordinary person taking a case through court. A poor result first time could cost them dear for a very long time and I should know.
So whilst I acknowledge the enthusiasm of the solicitor to provide continued arguments I do sometimes wonder if there is an easier solution for the client? Perhaps that’s why the AAD approach of getting to SB is in the best interest of the ordinary person, less stress and anxiety compared to legal system?
From my limited knowledge of the legal system looking in from outside, if you will, it appears that law is not an absolute and is often no more than an interpretation, which given we are supposed to live according to the law how can that be possible?
Imo, the legal system will never be balanced until somebody takes responsibility for it and clearly defines it, more often than not it is the innocent that get penalised as a result of it?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Well lets understand Joanna Connolly and @PlanB and Colin G Quinn comments and references can easily be found on the AAD site referencing this County Court Appeal Case.

"This is an important case because it confirms that consumers using the unenforceability provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 can successfully defend claims for personal Current Account Overdrafts in court"

Arrows lawyers will know this CASE because Consumer Debt is a specialist area of the Law and they are paid to know.

Personally I would not write to Arrow and risk restarting the Statute Bar clock. Why do their homework for them!
But that is my personal choice and your decision may be different.

Indeed you are correct in all you've said.

Thanks Roger and my apologies for not picking up on the previous posts earlier - if it reoccurs please let me know.

Point is, the OP is a client of JCS so they're in safe hands as JCS will guide them correctly. Thanks for tagging in the legal team - least it stopped any damage being caused.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Warwick65

Ive temporarily revoked your posting privileges. If you'd like to discuss this please email me directly.

I'm not impressed that you're adding fuel to the fire and confusing matters, as well as arguing with qualified professionals who know the law and their jobs!

Admin.

[Colin G Quinn]

Hi Warwick,

Thanks for the delayed response.

Realistically, what is the agenda here? In the last few weeks you seem to have been quick to almost immediately point out to posters 'worst case scenarios'. You have suggested Roger was confused, when I can say he certainly was not, and you have attempted to scaremonger, including a response to the user who posted the question which sparked all of this off, which as you know by virtue of that posters previous posts, is a client of my firm in a separate matter, and who was simply seeking advice.

People do not need that. Everyone deserves a good nights sleep. The people who seek help here receive enough sleepless nights from the creditors. I thought we were all here to assist and comfort. Being realistic yes. Scaring and unsubstantiated speculation, no.

I don't know why a 2013 County Court Judgment, which has long been superseded by numerous, and more senior Court, Judgments, has suddenly become a serious decision, or why it has become the topic of this user's thread, seeing that it was you who was previously concerned matters had gone off topic.

In any event, you are wrong again.

Firstly, you are falling into the very trap creditor/claimant's do. You are relying upon one line of a Judgment and passing it off as conclusive concrete that, that is what the overall Judgment says. You are simply wrong.

In Frost, the Judge considered the interpretation of service, including a bizarre, in not at least unnecessary reference to S69 of the Act, which doesn't apply at all.

Not only was the Judge's determination wrong on the issue, but the Judge actually pre-empted the issue at para 47, by finding as fact, that the default notice was served two days after sending, being the, according to the Judge and not me, '...the deemed date of service.' The Judgment actually contains the wording 'which would have been the deemed date of service'. At no point, contrary to what you say, does the Judge determine the default notice was received by, nor did the statutory remedy period run from, the date the document was posted.

I have no hesitation in saying that, had my firm represented Mrs Frost, the matter wouldn't have even reached trial, let alone a success for the Claimant. Unfortunately, for Mrs Frost, Joanna Connolly Solicitors did not exists at that time.

Reliance upon Judgments such as Arrow v Frost are an indictment on the consumer credit industry. It is sad to see the same here and promoted by you.

If you do not understand the Judgment I'm happy to discuss in a separate new thread. Or if you wish to speak about it, I can arrange for an appointment to be made for you to speak to me.

I note you have not responded to Joanna.

[Warwick65]

I am aware of the Judgment and you are incorrect. At paragraph 39.4 the Judge determined that, if the default notice was posted it fell to be properly served. That is completely different to your post at 852, whereby you said the Judge determined the date of service to be the date of posting.

If however you go to para 46 the judge says the following

'If I am right on my interpretation of Section 176 , then the notice of default was served on the day it was sent, namely 9 April 2010'

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...94e02e1374e7c5

[The Tech Clerk]

date of service/ date of posting = this has been argument for years.,