Is this statute-barred?

[Heyes]

I have an old issue with Cabot for a Vanquis credit card debt.

I originally received a court claim back in August 2014, which I acknowledged with 'defend in full, don't know anything about it' and then sent the CCA/CPR requests.

In October 2014 I received a photocopy of an agreement, about which I did nothing (and certainly didn't respond to anyone), since which the whole thing seemed to have gone dead.

Today I received a letter from Mortimer Clarke, wanting to pursue the issue. It included the statement '... agreement was terminated on 31/05/2010.'

The only outbound contact from me since 31/5/2010 is responding to the claim with a defence and sending the CCA/CPR requests - neither of which to me are 'acknowledgement of the debt'.

My perhaps-misinformed view is that as it's more 6 years since 'my last payment or acknowledgement of the debt' it's now statute-barred.

From memory, there was a record of the debt in my credit report, which I think was May 2010, and it's now no longer there (presumably because such things are removed after 6 years)

Rarely responsive at the best of times, in the absence of anything which suggests I should act differently, I'll likely just ignore this and wait to see if I receive anything from the court - whereupon I'll notify 'debt is statue barred'.

Advice appreciated - please and thanks.

[charitynjw]

Re: Is this statute-barred?

Hi Heyes

Perhaps it would be wise to check your historic bank statements for evidence of payments.

If you no longer have them on file, banks can normally send them to you for a small fee.

[Heyes]

Re: Is this statute-barred?

Hi Heyes

Perhaps it would be wise to check your historic bank statements for evidence of payments.

If you no longer have them on file, banks can normally send them to you for a small fee.

Thanks.
There wouldn't have been any payments after that date.
Besides, the onus of proof is with the claimant to prove the debt, not the defendant to disprove it. ;-)

[charitynjw]

Re: Is this statute-barred?

Thanks.
There wouldn't have been any payments after that date.
Besides, the onus of proof is with the claimant to prove the debt, not the defendant to disprove it. ;-)

Absolutely right.

However, as with most cases there is always an element of 'reverse burden'.

Imho it's always better to rely on positive proof than to wait & see what the other party can provide.

[Heyes]

Re: Is this statute-barred?

Absolutely right.

However, as with most cases there is always an element of 'reverse burden'.

Imho it's always better to rely on positive proof than to wait & see what the other party can provide.

I appreciate your advice, and we'll have to differ on this.

In such circumstances it's almost to prove 'you didn't do something'.

My relevant question here is whether a claim which began before the end of 6 years can still proceed after such a period. I guess I may eventually find out if I hear more from the court.

Further research suggests it isn't statute-barred, because they began action prior to the end of the 6-year period. I just don't know if this is affected by the 18-month delay since previous action from the claimant.

[charitynjw]

Re: Is this statute-barred?

As far as I know, the 6 year period starts from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

This is a somewhat moveable feast, depending on whether the BMW v Hart version, or some other precedent version, is accepted.

The limitation period is 'frozen' from the date which the court action commences, until the culmination of that action.

I may be wrong, however.

[Heyes]

Re: Is this statute-barred?

As far as I know, the 6 year period starts from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

The limitation period is 'frozen' from the date which the court action commences, until the culmination of that action.

I may be wrong, however.

I think you're right.
Oh well, with hopes of an easy-out dashed I'll see what happens.