I agree. It should be pretty straight forward and you can always come back on here and ask for advice. No point spending money where you don't have to...

As Rory says in his previous post, the act states -

6. Extinction of obligations by prescriptive periods of five years. —

 

(1) If, after the appropriate date, an obligation to which this section applies has subsisted for a continuous period of five years—

 

(a)without any relevant claim having been made in relation to the obligation, and

(b)without the subsistence of the obligation having been relevantly acknowledged

So, it starts from when you last made a payment to the debt or acknowledged it in writing, which would be March 2002. The fact that a default notice was served later is irrelevant. The finance company should, at that point, have taken legal action to recover their money. As they didn't, and then allowed such a significant period of time to pass before any action was taken, the debt is now Statute Barred and you should be able to have the decree recalled.

Tony, I'm glad to say that I dont have a daughter who has suffered in this way, but I do have a close relative who was wrongly convicted and spent four years in prison before being let out when new DNA evidence came to light. Eight years later and he still has nightmares about being in prison. A promising career in the city was ruined, he lost his wife, his friends, four years of his childrens' lives and his dignity. He tried to take his life twice in prison and once after he was released. Somebody else was convicted on the strength of the DNA evidence, but not before he had committed a number of serious crimes.

For the record, I agree with you that the law is this country is an ass and completely disagree with the way criminals are given a slap on the wrist for some serious offences.

Anyway, that aside, what I am trying to say is that I appreciate that we all have different ideas fashioned from our own emotional experience, but without the full facts we cannot make such rash judgements.

Right, enough nonsense from me. I'm off to bed. G'night, everyone

Well said, Giz. Couldn't agree more.

more importantly, the buyer would have to prove that the damage happened before the sale and that the seller stated at the point of sale that it wasn't broken.

Well said, Robin. I was thinking exactly the same thing, but couldn't find a decent story to back up my argument. People tend to think the worst when they see sex offender, but we have no idea what this guy has done, so removing his bits, clamping his nuts and shoving a knife where the sun don't shine may be a bit extreme. Especially if all he was trying to do was sh*g his bike!

If clamping his car is what would normally be done to enforce the fine, then that's what should be done, but it is not John's job to tell the persons emplyers why he is doing it.

Sounds like a pretty good outcome to me. Welcome Finance lose £25,000 and another idiot goes to jail. Good news all round, really

Oh please, spare me the tears.

 

If you had any REAL dilemmas with morality, you would not do the "job" in the first place.

Sorry, Tony, but I don't agree with you on that, or your earlier post, which I think was uncalled for and rather offensive. There is nothing wrong with the job; payment of outstanding debt / fines has to be enforced somehow. It's how the job is carried out that determines a person's character and it's unfair to assume that every bailiff is bad. I have had one or two bad experiences with them in the past, but I have also met one who was very pleasant and helpful and was interested in finding the best way to resolve the situation for everyone.

He really doesn't have a leg to stand on as it was a private sale. Sounds like he's trying to scare you into paying...

Section 24 of the Limitation Act 1980 states that -

(1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

(2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

So, I would have to say no, I don't believe they can re-enforce it.

asr2, I take it you are based in Scotland, then. You should be able to have the decree recalled so that you can submit your argument. I'm sure Rory will be along soon to confirm if this is the case, but until he is, have a look at this fact sheet. It is quite informative.

Thank you, Rory

As far as I am aware (I may be wrong) but once a debt is aknowledged then the limitations clock starts ticking again but I will check

Only if it is acknowledged before it becomes Statute Barred. A debt based on simple contract in Scotland becomes Statute Barred after five years, at which time it is extinguished. Under English law the debt becomes Statute Barred after 6 years. Although the debt still exists, it cannot be legally enforced. Servicing the debt after it is barred does not reset the clock. Once it is barred, it cannot be re-instated.

...and of course, no financial institution would ever attempt to sell it to you whilst unemployed, because that would be mis-selling!

Out of curiosity, did they try to sell you PPI?

This is absolutely common practice. As ODC says, they are just trying to scare you into calling them. Unless you are absolutely sure of your rights and are particularly confident in dealing with people like this, stick to writing to them. This type of letter is simply designed to frighten you into giving them money and is, at best, immoral, but could potentially be illegal.

However, simply ignoring correspondence from DCA's (the less wise may regard this as a go-ahead to throw all unidentified post straight in the recycling bin) could have disastrous consequences could it not?

 

Correct me once again if i'm wrong but I'm sure i've read on these very forums of unsecured debts going to certain DCA's who have successfully initiated charging orders on properties and before that there are bailiffs to consider.

It could certainly lead to serious problems, but the DCA's and creditors have no real power in themselves. They must apply to the courts to have any action legally enforced, an action which generally makes people sit up and take notice of their responsibilities. They cannot arrange charging orders or bailiff visits without court backing.

And quite correct about leaving moral aspects away from the forum, but on a quick personal note it does fascinate me how an individual can enjoy spending (sometimes large) sums of money then turn on the source of the money saying they've blatantly had a good time on the accepted terms (penalty charges and excessive APR's / unfair terms aside) but a few admin errors and you can swivel instead of having it back.

I completely agree. People should face up to their responsibilities and I would never advocate using loopholes in the law to avoid repaying debt, but there are other things to consider. However, lenders also have a responsibility towards their clients, through responsbile lending and fair management of their accounts. In many cases, lenders are just as guilty of causing financial problems as the borrowers are!

Oh, and no offence taken

Hi Louise, welcome to the forum. Just to clarify, is this in relation to a bank account or loan account?

It certainly sounds like the debt will be Statute Barred, based on the information you have given in your post. Can you be more specific about what the letter said. Have they actually stated that they have started taking legal action, or is it just one of the standard threatening letters saying that legal action MAY take place if you don't pay them?

As long as you keep it off the road and tax it on the 3rd of March, you don't have to worry about filling in a SORN application. The DVLA will not issue a SORN fine until at least 14 days after the previous tax disc expires. We're only talking three days here over a weekend. You'll be fine.

I'm no expert, but I don't believe these were the charegs referred to. This type of early repayment charge forms part of your contract and is generally payable in return for a reduced rate. I'm not sure that you would have grounds to reclaim the £7k. Your best bet really would be to string the sale out for a further six weeks

Here's a story to warm the cockles of your heart:

Residents show clamping crew just how it feels to be trapped - Times Online

This is hilarious. What a great story!!

Well, yes, I suppose you could. However, if you stop paying you can expect adverse credit to be recorded against you by the main credit reference agencies, making it more difficult to obtain credit in future and, if the client is sensible enough to use the court to enforce the debt, a CCJ will be recorded against you for up to six years, giving far greater powers to recover the money. Cleaning up your record once the debt is Statute Barred is not necessarily as simple as writing to the CRAs and asking them to remove the information. This has been widely discussed in other threads, so I would suggest doing a search to find out more.

Quite simply, if you owe the money and can afford to pay it, you should. If not, you should come to some arrangement with the original creditor to make reduced payements until such time as you can afford to revert to the original agreement. Obviously, though, if they add unfair penalties and charges to the account the rules change...

No! A debt can only be considered 'statute barred' if you have had NO correspondence from the creditor (or DCA)

GreatWonder, I'm not sure where you got this information from, but it is not correct. Correspondence from the creditor or DCA is irrelevant. They can write to you until the ink in their printers runs dry, but where simple (unsecured) contracts are concerned, if they haven't taken legal action to recover the debt within six years of the date it was first accrued and the debtor has not reset the clock by servicing the debt, it becomes statute barred. Section 5 of the Limitations Act, 1980 - Time limit for actions founded on simple contracs, states -

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Even if a judgement has been granted, this is only valid for six years. Section 24 of the Act states that -

(1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

(2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

Once the debt becomes Statute Barred it cannot be legally enforced. If you are sure that the debt is yours, there may be a moral obligation to repay it, but that is a personal choice and not really within the scope of this website.

The six years rule applies to the date that the outstanding debt, i.e. the arrears, first accrued, not the date that the account was put into default. Assuming you last serviced the debt or acknowledged responsibility in writing more than six years ago, the debt will now be statute barred under the Limitations Act. Even if the supply you with a genuine, signed CCA, it will still be statute barred. If you start making payments towards it now, it will still be statute barred.

To get the default removed you really will need to write to Thames Credit, using the letter above, and ask them to supply you with the requested information. Do not sign the letter and, just to be clear, put in capitals at the top of the letter -

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DEBT

If they cannot provide a copy of the default notice, you have grounds for having it removed from your credit file.