As soon as I can eat my through these bars... Strange, there's a person at my door with a BNP leaflet and what looks like a screen print of this conversation. Maybe I should wave about a pack of council leaflets since they are so offensive to certain members of the population

That would conflict with all consumer contracts that state a creditor can wind up an agreement (termination) giving notice. I would argue that the cause of action begins for a debt on the date which credit is drawn because that would be the date upon which the creditor could demand a payment. If an account remained at "zero" the creditor would obviously be prevented from any repayment options. I look at all sides of an argument so the flip side is that "cause of action" is a specific legal term which Wikipedia defines as: A creditor could therefore argue, and has argued in my previous cases, that this COA would not begin until the 14 days after DN is served or even entered on a credit file. There is nothing in statute to say that this is right. T&C's are not accommodated in the statute either. A consumer help site references this as the position: This would support my original contention. The government takes this position: Nothing about when the "limitation period" begins. The Credit Services Association, self professing that CAG is their "nemesis" in regards to statute barred debts, has given their members this guidance: This seems to be the proper position. Looking at the statute: Accrued is the key word. You cannot "accrue" a cause of action from the date upon which you decide to take action (namely the expiry of the 14 day period at the end of a traditional Default Notice OR, I would argue, contractual T&C's) because the accrual exists from the date which gave reason to be allowed to take such action. In the event of an unpaid debt this would be the date upon which the debtor last drew credit from the creditor without repayment because this is the first date of of accrual of both interest and from when the creditor is afforded rights of repayment (both under common law, T&C's etc). It also matches up nicely to the wording of the LA1980. That's how I get to my point of view anyway.

Oh dear... ask coledog and DonkeyB how brainwashed I am. They have access to my facebook account... brainwashed isn't a word I think best describes me

I already did.

Boo hoo. Grow up. I've been around this forum long enough to know when people are chancing it ;-)

Rant away fella, rant away

This is terrible behaviour... how dare they post a leaflet through your door. I think you have a claim running into the thousands... go to the European Court under the Human Rights Act... this is shocking in 21st century Britain. Ring the Daily Mail!!! Do it quick!!! Take 'em to the cleaners!!! Sounds like your behaviour was a little over the top to be honest. It's a leaflet, get over it Victor ;-)

Letter written today:

Formal complaint about ignoring a s.10 DPA notice back in July 2010 as they were recording info which I did not recognise. I wrote another follow up in Jan this year which was completely ignored. Received a letter today stating that they reserve the right to "instruct solicitors to issue legal proceedings against you without further notice". Considering that they have ignored all requests under the formal complaint process, it will be interesting to see on what grounds they issue proceedings. They have attached a statement of account which references absolutely NO payments on the account whatsoever, an initial debt of £224.42, a host of late payment fees/overlimit fees etc. This is the default on my CF: Last transaction on account in Feb 2005. Default registered 21/06/05. I'm sure the debt is statute barred anyway; a discussion has taken place on the forum regarding whether it is from the last date of payment or the last cause of action (being the default marker). I'm a last date of payment kinda guy; if it hinged upon the default date then a lender would never issue a default.

s.65 and s.127 (3) still apply of course. So long as you have not acknowledged the debt in writing during the limitation period this debt should be SB. I can't find your thread anyway HS, must be something wrong with the system.

I noticed many people on the forum are struggling with payday loans, particularly when it comes to difficulties in paying the account and then being forced into accepting a "rollover". Rollovers are essentially a temporary measure of delaying payment of the account in exchange for a fee (usually at a higher rate of interest than the initial loan). In exchange for the offer of more time to pay you agree to give consideration to the lender in the form of payment. If you are already struggling with the debt it makes little sense to be getting deeper into the mire. However, I have noticed that some lenders will automatically drop in this "rollover" element even if debtors inform the lender that they are experiencing difficulties. Under the OFT Debt Collection Guidance, the following applies: You are under no obligation to take out further finance or incur further costs if you are in financial difficulty. You only have to offer what you can afford to pay. Do not feel intimidated by the payday lenders, they have to abide by the rules like everyone else. They will tread a fine line or completely step over it. Knowledge is power so use it.

Sounds reasonable to me. He could be bluffing but how much money is in dispute?

I've noticed a flurry of activity from old creditors recently. Looks like CAG will be getting busier!

CPR 31.16 applies if he is going to issue proceedings in the county court. It is the duty of parties to try to mediate prior to the issue of proceedings. Could affect costs decisions etc. But if RICS applies, as per your contract, this is the route he must follow I would have thought. What's the pump for anyway?

No. Just download the N252 form... fill it in and then send to their solicitors with a covering letter that you expect the costs to be paid by "X" date or you will make an application which will cost them £300 for an assessment of your costs. I'll help more tomorrow with filling it in and the letter writing if you want to wait. Won't be until late evening though.

Unless a person placed it in the envelope and could reliably swear to it I'm not sure it would be admissible. It would be an odd fact that someone remembers posting a document 2/3 years ago too. But even with this as the case, would an affidavit stating that you had not received the DN and thus effective service of the document had not been completed be evidence of the kind that could see a default removed or at least the account "reset" prior to the default?

Isn't the burden of proof upon the creditor to prove it was posted at all?

If a creditor claims that they sent a default notice, does effective service on the debtor begin and end with it being sent recorded delivery? Or is first class delivery acceptable?

Absolutely. In fact, the more you can post the better. If they ever bring up that you use this forum they will be effectively admitting they know about the defects in their case yet continued regardless. Could have costs implications ;-) In 90% of all my threads I'm quite open about the information creditors can see. Especially in my HFO thread... they brought in a huge bundle of all my posts from the forum. The Judge practically deemed them irrelevant to the case and classed it as underhand. He also said that my actions in being public were consistent with my open and honest approach and that it was to HFO's advantage that they knew in advance all of my arguments. So don't worry. They'll know everything eventually. Just don't get caught out making libellous statements like others have done.

Bump

Blimey, £400 for a £100 debt. What was your defence?

After some negotiation a new TO has been agreed with paras. 3 & 4 completely removed.

Sure. Might be worth starting a new thread for it though.

Are you able to scan and post it here?

Interesting thread del... Is the defence/POC all on this thread?