Thanks for the advice.

Hi Ellen. I'll do as you suggest. If proof comes back saying that her ex acknowledged and settled up, lets say 2 years ago, how would that leave my wife standing with this alleged debt?

The lender was Citibank back in 1991 but the letters are from debt collection agency so I'm assuming they have bought an old debt. It is my wife that is receiving these letters in her maiden name at our address. The original mortgage was between her and her ex back in 1991. They split, she believed she had signed the house over to him. He had it repossessed a few months later. We have no way of getting in touch with him. We have not responded to any calls or letters from this debt collection agency. I'd say that it is statute barred and they are trying it on, to trick her into paying because they are claiming he has recently (within last few years) settled his side of the debt. What I need to know is if he as recently settled with these debt collectors, has he reset the statute barring period for her, even if no payments or acknowledgements have been made by her in 22 years. I'll await a response from Ellen. Thank you very much.

Checked her credit file. No mention of this debt.

CitizenB, thanks for looking at this for us. The letters you have linked to seem to pertain to writing to a lender. Does it still apply just the same that this is a debt collection agency. The original lender, Citibank, said they had no record of any debt when she enquired in 2006.

Not seen her credit file lately, but last time she looked (she works in a bank), there was no mention of this debt.

My thoughts where that they had bought the debt and he would have received exactly the same letter claiming she had made a payment and he was now no longer statute barred. I suppose what I really need to know for sure is that is it the law that if one party breaks cover, even 20 years later, the other is then no longer statute barred?? I'll await further advice.

We have no way of getting in touch. This dates back to 1991. What if we assumed he has made an acknowledgement/payment?

..

No. In 2006 her solicitor could not find any evidence of this debt, even though she told him of this old mortgage with Citibank.... She rang Citibank at the time with names and the address explaining she was consolidating her debts, but they said they had no record of the debt..... She has been paying payplan for all other debts since. If she would have found the debt with the bank back in 2006, then she would have had it included in the payplan.

Hi All, I'm new here and looking for some advice. My Mrs recently started getting calls and letters from 'Asset Recoveries UK Ltd'... . She's ignored all so far but today they stepped things up a bit by stating where the debt was from and why she was due to pay it. back in 1991, her and her ex boyfriend had a house with a joint mortgage. They split up and she 'thought' she had signed the house over to him. A few months later the house was repossessed and sold. She does not remember receiving any correspondence from the mortgage provider (Citibank) about any arrears. In 2006 she collated all her debts and went into a 'Payplan' where she pays back the full amount owed, but no interest. At that time there was no record of a debt from Citibank and she even got a local solicitor to search for any debt, so it could be included in the plan. He found nothing. The payplan is due to be paid up later in 2014. A few months ago she started getting calls on her mobile, asking for her in her maiden name, from a debt collection agency called '1st Credit', attempting to ascertain who she was. She refused to provide any information each time. Eventually the calls stopped. In late February she received a letter (at my address but in her maiden name) from a debt collection agency stating she owed £12k asking her to contact them to start payment. It said she would be taken to court if she never responded. It did not state what the alleged debt was for. I threw it in the bin and told her not to worry as any alleged debt from 1991 would be statute barred. We may have had a similar letter since and if so it was filed in the bin. Today (May 2014), she received a letter from 'Asset Recovery UK' stating she owed the £12k for a mortgage repossession and it stated the address of the repossessed property, and also the name of her ex, who she had the joint mortgage with. Again, I would suspect that the debt is statute barred.... but.... . the letter states that the limitation period has been extended as her ex (the co-borrower) has made payments and his liabilty is now paid in full. It says section 29(5) of the limitation act states that as her ex has made an acknowledgement, the statute period is extended for a further 12 years. It also states section 31 states that one party acknowledging the debt, binds all parties liable and thus the limitation period is extended for another 12 years. I've read the relevant parts of the limitation act and section 29(5) suggests that the clock starts ticking again once the debt is acknowledged. Section 31 is a little more ambiguous to me. Parts 1 to 5 suggest that one party making an acknowledgement does indeed does bind any other parties with same responsibilities BUT parts 1 to 5 talk about land claims and mortgage debts. Part 6 mentions a debt (rather than mortgage etc) and states "An acknowledgment of any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim shall bind the acknowledgor and his successors but not any other person", which to me suggests his acknowledgement does not bind through to her. Part 7 "A payment made in respect of any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim shall bind all persons liable in respect of the debt or claim"... this suggests to me that the debt does now bind to her. What are the thoughts of the experts please? I'm still in the camp that the debt is statute barred and they are just trying it on. The letter seems to have been hand delivered as there was no envelope, just an accompanying form to fill in about her financial affairs. I've searched with google, but not come up with anything where they are claiming that as the other party has acknowledged, the co-party is now also liable and no longer statute barred.