Tweet
Hi I wrote a statute barred letter to Cabot Financial (a debt purchase company) regarding a non-secured loan debt more than 6 years old.
They replied saying that as legal proceedings were initiated, even though a CCJ was not obtained, that the debt is no longer subject to the Limitations Act 1980 and so is not statute barred.
Court documents were apparently sent out by them to obtain a CCJ but were sent back as I don't live there. The last couple of letters were forwarded to me by my parents' tenants.
They said as the loan is no longer statute barred, they will hold the account for 21 days for me to contact them to arrange repayment, otherwise if they do not hear from me they will return the account to the collections process.. which I assume to mean they will try legal action to reapply for CCJ?
Dates of last payment, Default notice, any acknowledgment of debt, and their initiation of legal proceedings - were all more than 6 years ago.
They started court action before the limitations period was up and say "..court documents were sent back to their solicitors and stamped "does not live here". As such, no CCJ was obtained."
nationaldebtline.org states:
"Once a creditor has a county court judgment (CCJ) for a debt, the Limitation Act does not put any time limits on how long they have to enforce that judgment."
citizensadvice.org.uk states:
"If you've already been given a court order for a debt, there's no time limit for the creditor to enforce the order.
If the court order was made more than 6 years ago, the creditor has to get court permission before they can use bailiffs."
A National Debtline advisor said that they may have a case that it's not statute barred, and in theory, you cannot be taken to court for the same debt twice, but as they never obtained a CCJ last time, this may be a possibility.
However, a Citizen's Advice Bureau advisor said:
"They would have needed to obtain a CCJ to stop the debt becoming statute-barred. Simply issuing a money claim and then dropping the claim doesn't stop a debt from becoming statute-barred - they would have needed to get a CCJ."
They went on to say: "If they did take legal action to reapply for a CCJ, they would need to make a money claim at court - you would get a claim pack in the post. You would need to defend the debt within 14 days on the grounds that it is statute-barred."
Clearly these advisors have contradicted each other and given conflicting advice.
Is it true that though they initiated legal proceedings, the fact a CCJ was not obtained within the 6 year period, means the debt is in fact statute barred? Or is it true that as legal proceedings were initiated, even though a CCJ was not obtained, that the debt is no longer subject to the Limitations Act 1980 and so is not statute barred?
Re: "you cannot be taken to court for the same debt twice, but as they never obtained a CCJ last time, this may be a possibility."
- Is this true?
What is my best course of action?
Thank you
They replied saying that as legal proceedings were initiated, even though a CCJ was not obtained, that the debt is no longer subject to the Limitations Act 1980 and so is not statute barred.
Court documents were apparently sent out by them to obtain a CCJ but were sent back as I don't live there. The last couple of letters were forwarded to me by my parents' tenants.
They said as the loan is no longer statute barred, they will hold the account for 21 days for me to contact them to arrange repayment, otherwise if they do not hear from me they will return the account to the collections process.. which I assume to mean they will try legal action to reapply for CCJ?
Dates of last payment, Default notice, any acknowledgment of debt, and their initiation of legal proceedings - were all more than 6 years ago.
They started court action before the limitations period was up and say "..court documents were sent back to their solicitors and stamped "does not live here". As such, no CCJ was obtained."
nationaldebtline.org states:
"Once a creditor has a county court judgment (CCJ) for a debt, the Limitation Act does not put any time limits on how long they have to enforce that judgment."
citizensadvice.org.uk states:
"If you've already been given a court order for a debt, there's no time limit for the creditor to enforce the order.
If the court order was made more than 6 years ago, the creditor has to get court permission before they can use bailiffs."
A National Debtline advisor said that they may have a case that it's not statute barred, and in theory, you cannot be taken to court for the same debt twice, but as they never obtained a CCJ last time, this may be a possibility.
However, a Citizen's Advice Bureau advisor said:
"They would have needed to obtain a CCJ to stop the debt becoming statute-barred. Simply issuing a money claim and then dropping the claim doesn't stop a debt from becoming statute-barred - they would have needed to get a CCJ."
They went on to say: "If they did take legal action to reapply for a CCJ, they would need to make a money claim at court - you would get a claim pack in the post. You would need to defend the debt within 14 days on the grounds that it is statute-barred."
Clearly these advisors have contradicted each other and given conflicting advice.
Is it true that though they initiated legal proceedings, the fact a CCJ was not obtained within the 6 year period, means the debt is in fact statute barred? Or is it true that as legal proceedings were initiated, even though a CCJ was not obtained, that the debt is no longer subject to the Limitations Act 1980 and so is not statute barred?
Re: "you cannot be taken to court for the same debt twice, but as they never obtained a CCJ last time, this may be a possibility."
- Is this true?
What is my best course of action?
Thank you
Comment