1st Credit / Default date

[ODC]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

In this particular case unless Worst Credit are chasing for a lot of money I would be inclined to call their bluff

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Extrapolation, not a precedent.

I would really like to see some cases where creditors have succeeded on that argument. That would be the only real proof of the pudding so to speak. I presume there must be some?

A precedent setting court case is a pretty big positive isn't it ?

I would imagine that many would not pursue an action for claiming SB in the light of this, which may be why none have appeared, however if the OP wants to have a go and try and get them to disprove, the burden is on them to show that this applies.

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

A precedent setting court case is a pretty big positive isn't it ?

I would imagine that many would not pursue an action for claiming SB in the light of this, which may be why none have appeared, however if the OP wants to have a go and try and get them to disprove, the burden is on them to show that this applies.

Not if it is never tested in application.

Turning that back the other way, one could say that lack of successful cases by DCAs/creditors could be taken as an indication that they do not feel confident in applying this argument in court.

So, as it stands, there are no cases that have either been won or lost on this?

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

BMW appeal was won on this wasn't it ?

I think that like it or not this argument will be presented, and unless someone can come up with a valid counter argument in a higher court it will prevail, as it stands the judge will just acknowledge this as precedent, as it is directly relevant to CCA agreements.

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Yes, so I'm asking for examples where it has been presented and has prevailed (or failed). Doesn't seem to be any nearly a year after that judgement?

BTW, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm happy for substantiation via real case examples either way.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

IMHO Worst Credit are chancing their arms by using their favourite practice of smoke and mirrors. Personally I would write back to the buggers telling them that your position remains unchanged and the alleged debt IS Statute Barred. If DCAs were all permittedto go by the default date then if no Default letter was ever issued the shelf life could be prolonged indefinitely. I thought the general rule of thumb was one month after your last payment because by the terms of your CCA they could then take action.

Just my opinion

In this particular case unless Worst Credit are chasing for a lot of money I would be inclined to call their bluff

I concur with the above. They haven't started court proceedings so it's not a matter for a court to decide. They've had 6 years to issue proceedings yet they haven't done so... :confused2:

I can't see any harm done by sending the SBd letter when they are confirming that the last payment was made over 6 years ago, in the unlikely event this went to court BEFORE it could be well and truly SBd, as a lay person, the OP couldn't be expected to fully grasp the ins and outs of legal precedents and would be forgiven for taken the view that the debt would be SBd 6 years after the last payment. :whistle::whistle::whistle:

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

I concur with the above. They haven't started court proceedings so it's not a matter for a court to decide. They've had 6 years to issue proceedings yet they haven't done so... :confused2:

I can't see any harm done by sending the SBd letter when they are confirming that the last payment was made over 6 years ago, in the unlikely event this went to court BEFORE it could be well and truly SBd, as a lay person, the OP couldn't be expected to fully grasp the ins and outs of legal precedents and would be forgiven for taken the view that the debt would be SBd 6 years after the last payment. :whistle::whistle::whistle:

Yes the burden of proof is on the other side to show that the action is not statute barred of course.

[ODC]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Where are Paul and Celestine

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Dunno. I PMd Paul, as I know he has a view on this.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Where are Paul and Celestine

At work, of course.

Dunno. I PMd Paul, as I know he has a view on this.

Good idea :clap2: they are the experts. :yo: :yo:

[pt2537]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

A precedent setting court case is a pretty big positive isn't it ?

I would imagine that many would not pursue an action for claiming SB in the light of this, which may be why none have appeared, however if the OP wants to have a go and try and get them to disprove, the burden is on them to show that this applies.

Precedent which is distinguishable on the facts

An agreement which was not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

A case where Glass v Swansea wasnt argued

plenty to play with id suggest

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Precedent which is distinguishable on the facts

An agreement which was not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

A case where Glass v Swansea wasnt argued

plenty to play with id suggest

It could be tried, but from what I read the judge based his judgment on an analysis of contract law. In that the cause of action did not occur until the debtors repudiation of agreement was accepted and the full sum became due.

It would be extremely difficult to argue that this did not apply to a CCA agreement, because as said all sums are not due until post termination of the agreement.

A contractual breach, like the missing of a payment can only trigger an action for a sum to put the agreement back on track, any more than this would be considered a penalty and unlawful.
So missing a payment could not be considered a cause of action no matter what the agreement.

The case mentioned would not be applicable because all sums would be due on completion of the work, the issuance of a termination notice would indeed have been merely a formality. Not so i a case of breach of contract and especially not so with a consumer credit agreement where a DN must be issued.

The commentary agrees with this analysis. Personally I see no reasonable counter argument.

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Precedent which is distinguishable on the facts

An agreement which was not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

A case where Glass v Swansea wasnt argued

plenty to play with id suggest

Thanks Paul.

Certainly seems so. Especially as it seems that no DCA/creditor has succeeded (or tried? ) on that argument in court so far, despite that ruling being nearly a year old.

Hope the new job in Brighton is going well BTW.

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Thanks Paul.

Certainly seems so. Especially as it seems that no DCA/creditor has succeeded (or tried? ) on that argument in court so far, despite that ruling being nearly a year old.

Hope the new job in Brighton is going well BTW.

How many times have we heard that an argument is proven because a creditor has not tried it, and how many times has it been shown that when the creditor does the argument is false

If there is an argument which contradicts the analysis on the post mentioned then lets hear it.

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Your analysis may be correct, or it may not. However, the application of it has not been tested yet, so it is purely speculation on what a judge might conclude in a case involving a, b and c due to the decison of a court looking at c, d and e. You can draw inferences, but not a solid conclusion.

The lack of cases where this has been argued is not conclusive either, but it more than a tad suggestive and suspicious. Especially as this was for a ruling that was allegedly at the time so "helpful" to the industry.

Personally, I don't much care which way it goes as long as there is some clarity on the matter, and despite so called "analysis" on several fronts, that is not going to come until there are multiple examples of this failing or succeeding in court. So far, there appear to have been none. Jury (or judge, figuratively or literally) is still out on it.