Hello all ,
I've been reading stories on this website for the past few weeks or so and have picked up some very helpful advice but now have a query of my own that I cannot see addressed elsewhere (well, I have seen similar but would like to enquire about my own precise circumstances).
First of all, I had a credit card issued to me several years ago (2007 I believe) which I could not keep up payments with which eventually defaulted and subsequently sold to DCAs.
The current owner of this debt is Cabot and a few weeks ago I received a letter from their in-house solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, stating that they were going to take me to court over this and that I had two weeks to respond with the basis of my defense or to agree a repayment plan with them.
I was pretty sure this debt was statute barred but checked with my bank for when the last payment was made by myself. I received confirmation from my bank that it was in October 2008. Since October 2008 I had not written to anyone to acknowledge the debt either.
Armed with these facts, and after consulting this website, amongst others, and after speaking with the local Citizens Advice Bureau, I drafted a standard 'statute barred' letter and sent it to Mortimer Clarke.
I have now received a reply to my letter with the following:
"Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited
And: XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
Ref: XXXXXXXXX
You have alleged that the claim is statute barred. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that 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.
The six year limitation period runs from the latest date on which:
1. A payment was made towards the debt; or
2. The agreement was terminated; or
3. You acknowledged the debt in writing.
We are instructed that in this case the cause of action accrued when the agreement was terminated on 22/03/2009. Therefore the debt is not statute barred and still remains payable. If you disagree please explain why."
First of all, I'm quite pedantic and surely "accrued" should actually be "occurred", in both instances? But more importantly, as I see it the cause of action date would have been a month of so after I last paid and not the quoted March 2009 date which was in fact the date the default was registered with the CRAs.
So to recap, no payment has been made since October 2008, meaning the cause of action date would be around November 2008. I have not written acknowledging the debt within this period so as far as I see it, this debt is now statute barred and has been for a couple of months. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
So my question now is should I bother even replying to this letter? My initial reaction was to ignore it and see if they try to pursue it in court. I can't see what grounds they can win on so I assume ignoring it wouldn't do any harm. This is of course assuming all of what I have written above and how I see things is correct.
I would be happy for someone with a little more knowledge about these things to kindly read my post and give their feedback on what course of action, if any, I should take next.
Many thanks .
I've been reading stories on this website for the past few weeks or so and have picked up some very helpful advice but now have a query of my own that I cannot see addressed elsewhere (well, I have seen similar but would like to enquire about my own precise circumstances).
First of all, I had a credit card issued to me several years ago (2007 I believe) which I could not keep up payments with which eventually defaulted and subsequently sold to DCAs.
The current owner of this debt is Cabot and a few weeks ago I received a letter from their in-house solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, stating that they were going to take me to court over this and that I had two weeks to respond with the basis of my defense or to agree a repayment plan with them.
I was pretty sure this debt was statute barred but checked with my bank for when the last payment was made by myself. I received confirmation from my bank that it was in October 2008. Since October 2008 I had not written to anyone to acknowledge the debt either.
Armed with these facts, and after consulting this website, amongst others, and after speaking with the local Citizens Advice Bureau, I drafted a standard 'statute barred' letter and sent it to Mortimer Clarke.
I have now received a reply to my letter with the following:
"Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited
And: XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
Ref: XXXXXXXXX
You have alleged that the claim is statute barred. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that 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.
The six year limitation period runs from the latest date on which:
1. A payment was made towards the debt; or
2. The agreement was terminated; or
3. You acknowledged the debt in writing.
We are instructed that in this case the cause of action accrued when the agreement was terminated on 22/03/2009. Therefore the debt is not statute barred and still remains payable. If you disagree please explain why."
First of all, I'm quite pedantic and surely "accrued" should actually be "occurred", in both instances? But more importantly, as I see it the cause of action date would have been a month of so after I last paid and not the quoted March 2009 date which was in fact the date the default was registered with the CRAs.
So to recap, no payment has been made since October 2008, meaning the cause of action date would be around November 2008. I have not written acknowledging the debt within this period so as far as I see it, this debt is now statute barred and has been for a couple of months. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
So my question now is should I bother even replying to this letter? My initial reaction was to ignore it and see if they try to pursue it in court. I can't see what grounds they can win on so I assume ignoring it wouldn't do any harm. This is of course assuming all of what I have written above and how I see things is correct.
I would be happy for someone with a little more knowledge about these things to kindly read my post and give their feedback on what course of action, if any, I should take next.
Many thanks .
Comment