Ancient MBNA / Westcot, now Arrows - N1 issued

[Bookworm]

Hey oop.

 

Rusty ol' me passing through, helping someone and I'm pondering on best course of action (not helped by lack of docs from the OP).

 

C/C debt passed from OC to DCA to another DCA, then returned to 1st DCA.

 

 

Last contact was in 2009 or 10.

 

 

Suddenly, N1 appeared, lodged by Drysden, of course. OP has no recollection of ever getting a default notice, assignment or anything like that.

 

I've told him to acknowledge for now while I refresh my memory, but I am dithering on where to best handle it.

 

I am thinking:

 

- contact Arrows with CCA request.

I am 99% sure that there will not be compliant paperwork,

the CC was obtained in 1996 or 7, so odds of a valid contract existing are I think highly improbable.

Even if by miracle it still exists, the odds of it having all the required elements and being legible etc is just as remote, IMO.

 

- request paper trail: default notice, assignment.

 

 

The POC is very generic and vague and does not mention any date at which the notices were supposedly sent to OP,

which make me suspicious, in the past, when I have been hounded,

if they had followed the paper trail properly, they would say so straight away.

 

- defence: putting claimant to strict proof of, well, pretty much everything: the amounts, assignment, etc.

 

What annoys me is that at some point, the debt became SB then one of the DCAs managed to scare OP into starting payment anyway

(he didn't know anything about these illegal tactics)...

 

The aim is either to get the claimants to see they won't get an easy ride of it a

nd that this is one defendant which won't go down quietly, a

nd hopefully discontinue sooner rather than later.

 

 

If that doesn't work, then make sure that them chasing after a debt which became toxic a long time ago costs

them a lot of money and work by the time OP gets to court.

 

Any opinions, advice, have I missed an obvious trick? Fire away and thank in advance.

[Bookworm]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[numbers666]

.

.

What annoys me is that at some point, the debt became SB then one of the DCAs managed to scare OP into starting payment anyway (he didn't know anything about these illegal tactics)...

.

.

.

 

Does this not have an impact on the status - once SB always SB if the 6 years passed cleanly ?

 

Under the Limitations Act 1980 the time limits are

 

in simple contracts, 6 years

in contracts under seal, 12 years.

If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or makes a part payment within the original limitation period, then the time limits start to run again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment.

 

Even though the lender may be barred from pursuing recovery, a debtor may decide to pay the debt after the expiry of the time limits. Because of this you should allow a debt which is otherwise statute-barred if the personal representatives pay the debt and you receive evidence that the payment has been made.

[citizenB]

Bookworm, if there was a period of over 6 years where the OP didn't make payments or acknowledge then despite resumption of payments under duress, the debt is, as I understand it still statute barred.

 

I will alert others on the site team for more advice.

[citizenB]

Hi Bookworm..

 

Looks like I was correct, if there was a period of 6 years where your relative didn't make payment the debt would have become SB'd.. it matters not that your relative has been tricked/pressured into making further payments, it doesn't unbar it -sadly the creditor or DCA has been the recipient of monies it wouldn't otherwise have had .

 

SB defence

once SB always SB.

 

 

" What annoys me is that at some point' date=' the debt became SB[/color'] then one of the DCAs managed to scare OP into starting payment anyway "

 

If can be proven it was already SB before payment then as per dx above.

[Bookworm]

That is fantastic news. I did not know that. Excellent.

 

Thank you so much. I am writing the chap's defence this afternoon (not a relative, not even someone I know well, lol, but you know me, a sucker for helping strangers!) and I was toying with the idea of throwing the SB thing in anyway, so that should really be the final nails in these b*****s coffin.

 

Brilliant. Right, I'm off again to write that defence. Thanks again.

[AndyOrch]

The following defence is all you need if it is SB Booky

 

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).

 

2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

walpants I have created your own thread follow the link

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?437007-Re-MBNA-Westcot-now-Arrows-Claim-form-Issued

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Bookworm]

Thanks, Andy.

 

The problem is that while I am pretty sure the claim is SB, my chap cannot be certain. He has very patchy documentation, and his recollection of the event of so many years ago is even patchier. I can't take the chance of just claiming SB and then, bang, they pull out of the hat token payments made here and there, just enough to stop the LA to kick in, you know?

 

So, whilst I am indeed going to put in the LA1980, I can't solely rely on that. Belt and braces approach, as well as spats, umbrella, safety cable and wellies, frankly.

[citizenB]

If they do pull out any "payments", then you can ask for them to prove how they were paid

 

It has been known for "phantom" payments to be made to an account.

 

Also, some creditors/DCAs had the novel idea of applying the SAR and CCA statutory fees to the accounts.. all this means is that there is an unsolicited payment.. these fees are NOT to be used to reduce the balance or mess around with the SB clock.

[Bookworm]

 

Also, some creditors/DCAs had the novel idea of applying the SAR and CCA statutory fees to the accounts.. all this means is that there is an unsolicited payment.. these fees are NOT to be used to reduce the balance or mess around with the SB clock.

 

why, the cheeky so-and-sos!!!