Joint debt, statute barred when one member was IVA protected ?

[AA123]

Hi

 

A quick question if I may. A friend has a joint debt with wife. He was in an IVA which completed last year, the joint debt was subject to the Settled IVA.

 

Wife was not in an IVA.

 

Seven years after starting IVA - IVA friends wife has received letter saying they are pursuing for outstanding debt, they can't pursue him due to IVA so going after other name on joint account.

 

I guess some of the payments to the IVA from him over term of IVA will have settled some of the debt.

 

In the past seven years wife has made no payment to IVA and received no communication regarding the joint debt.

 

Can wife be pursued for the debt or not as it is statute barred (over 6 years) ?

 

Could company argue there have been payments to account in the last 6 years via husbands insolvency practitioner thus negating the statute barred defence ? Even though she has made no payments to account ?

 

Could a solicitor file legal papers regarding this debt against the wife ?

 

Thanks.

[Bazooka Boo]

AFAIK, if this was a joint debt, then the wife who was not subject to the IVA will still be liable for the debt.

 

If payments were being made to this debt via the IVA then every time payment was made it will have reset the clock, regardless of who was making those payments, ie either party who is jointly liable for the debt.

 

How much is it?

[AA123]

7 years ago was £6500 now in excess of £13,500.

 

 

As the wife has made no payments to the account and not received any statements or communication regarding the account I feel the statute barred defence should apply. Especially as the lender has made no effort to communicate with her at all in the period. Whilst the IVA prevented the creditor from contacting the IVA protected husband, it did not stop them from having to communicate with the wife.

 

 

Was the creditor not obliged to send standard default letters or annual statements ?

 

 

Hypothetically what if they were separated and they had not been writing to her this whole period and she was not aware of her husbands IVA (as the name suggests it's nothing to do with her).

 

 

seem a bit of a sharp practice to me - any thoughts on a defence ? seems harsh as the original debt was listed in his IVA.

[Bazooka Boo]

Good point.....definitely food for thought.

 

So they have still been adding interest/charges on this then?

 

Had it been defaulted then terminated which is why the OH had it in his IVA?

 

TBH I'm not 100% sure?

 

They know they can't go after him, so they are going after her, BUT, again I am unsure as to whether they 'should' have been sending

annual statements of the account to her, because it was in an IVA, albeit his half....?

 

I see your point that they could have communicated with her during his IVA period, even if it was just to tell her that she was still

liable to continue making payments.

I would hold fire on using the SB defence until someone else has had a chance to advise first, but you could well be right, they've not contacted her

for 7 years, nor sent her any correspondence so it could very well be SB?

[WindySock]

Payment by any signatory on the debt - or their agent - restarts the SB clock for all persons liable. s31 LA1980.

 

(different to acknowledgement, where that only starts the SB clock for the person who makes it)

 

Payment by an IVA company certainly counts as via their agent, if not direct.

 

So almost certainly not SB against them.

 

Whether the interest/charges applied in the meantime are enforceable in the lack of statements or arrears notices is another matter, and dependant on the type of debt. Really need to know whether this was CCA regulated, and if so what type of agreement. CCA enforceability in the lack of those can be restored by providing the correct notices.

[AA123]

Natwest was the creditor (Im guessing a credit card tomorrow not an overdraft).