Hi, I'm new here but I have been following this thread with interest as it is very relevant to me and I thought I might add something which could shed some light on this argument. Unfortunately for dodgeball and others it sides with charharps and brigadiers point. Personally before I found this bit of information I sided with charharp and brigadier mainly because of charharps point that it's when the bank first has the option to take action not when they choose to. If dodgeball was correct why would the bank ever serve the default notice...using your theory alls that would do is trigger limitations, it would be better for the bank to never do this until the point it wanted to take court action. Anyhow here it is... A cause of action can still accrue (i.e. time starts to run) even though a claimant is prevented from suing by a statutory procedural requirement which precludes the issue of proceedings. In Swansea City Council v Glass (1992) the local authority brought a claim against a landlord for reimbursement of the cost it had incurred in repairing a house in multiple occupation. The issue was whether the cause of action accrued when the work had been completed or or only when the local authority had served a written notice demanding payment as required by The Housing Act 1957. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory requirement for a written notice was a procedural matter and that time ran from the date that the costs were incurred and the work completed. If this were not the case the local authority could prevent time from running indefinitely simply by not serving the statutory notice. In respect of an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, the question is whether the time runs from the date of actual default by the debtor or from the date of (or the date of expiry of) the default notice that must be served under s87 CCA1974. The situation is analogous to the Swansea City Council case in that the requirement for the service of a the default notice is a procedural matter that does not form part of the cause of action. It does not affect the creditor's right to payment but only the procedure for enforcing it. If this were not the position, a creditor could delay the running of time indefinitely by not serving a default notice. This view was supported by West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson (2005), where the House of Lords stated that it would be 'strange if a lender could stop time running by its own act'. This support charharps point and with no disrespect to dodgeball and others your argument just doesn't add up for me, the BMW/Hart decision does not help your cause I have no idea why you cited that. I hope this is helpful. Andy

If I send them an SB letter and the account is not yet barred, would that reset the clock?

The default date on my file is october 2008. I've been reading some other threads on here and some people think it's 6 years since last payment even on overdrafts. I was hoping because I went into unplanned overdraft and it just kept getting bigger it would be from that point.

I don't have any of the letters from back then, is it likely they recalled it at the same time they defaulted it? Can I reclaim the fees even if I didn't pay them?

I'm trying to work out when they may have recalled it, looking at my credit file it tells me the balance each month. It seems they started adding a large fee (£250) every month starting 4 months after I went into an unplanned overdraft, I'm thinking these must be delayed though? They carry on for another 4 months and then only smalls amounts like £11 are added each month which I assume is interest. Would the large fees have stopped because they recalled the whole account?

How long do banks generally wait once you go into an unauthourised overdraft and never pay anything again before they recall the overdraft?

But I've read that calling them does not reset statute barred? I've seen that on OD it could be from the date it was recalled? Yes I've seen the thread on that argument, it was an interesting read!

The overdraft I went into an unauthorised overdraft in November 2007 and never made any further payments and was defaulted in October 2008...any idea when statute barred will be on this?

I was thinking something like that, unless I get a statutory demand I'm going to ignore them. Does calling them to 'discuss' it to stall them not have it's merits or will me getting into contact with them just encourage them to pursue me? It seems they have been angered by me taking out a couple of credit cards.

Has anybody got any idea why Lowells would threaten court action for £1,000 that is statute barred but not for £2,900 which isn't until next year? The letter seems to hold no weight, it says if you do not agree a repayment plan in a certain amount of days with us we will pass it on to somebody else and if you can not agree a repayment plan with them they will refer it to a firm of solicitors to recover the debt and if you still do not pay they will pursue a CCJ. So basically I have 3 chances to agree to repay. Seems very weak.

No going off last payment date, default drop off in march! I get a letter like every month for the £2,900 but never threatening CCJ ect. I must admit it's got me a bit anxious after going through this sh*t for 6 years and thinking they could put me through another 6 years if they get a CCJ.

About £1,000...

Seems strange they would push for the £1,000 one and not the £2,900 one. Or maybe there is another letter on the way to me about that one.

Well the one that is barred was a credit card and it's been over 6 years since I paid anything or made contact. The other one is an overdraft so I can't work out what's happening with that one but it shouldn't be anymore than a few months. I know they can't get a CCJ I just don't want to contact them at all until the other one is barred as well.

The wording in letter suggests they do not have much weight behind their threats, full of if's and maybe's. Would it be a good idea to ignore then if they contact me again after christmas call them to use some sort of stalling tactic?