Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

[Aymz]

Hello, hoping for some more advice.

My husband has a debt from Lowells which he has since believed to be statute barred. He requested paperwork from them. He had statements from Welcome (orginal creditor; loan was for car finance) and statements from Lowell.

Upon looking at it, it seems that the last payment to Welcome was 25/5/2007 and hubbys first payment to Lowell was 7/6/13. Upon advice from the MSE forum, we wrote to say the debt is statute barred, as it was over 6 years (albeit not long past). Lowell wrote back to say that the 6 years starts from the default date, and not the date from the last payment to Welcome (as had been advised previously). Went back to MSE to advise of update and one post suggested to come here.

I've looked at a couple of threads on here and now I'm wondering whether the debt is actually statute barred or not. I'd therefore appreciate any advice you could give for this.

Should add, as I was going through the statement from Welcome again, that the last confirmed payment was actually on 26/4/2007 - the payment on 25/5/2007 was a failed direct debit - it came off balance but went back on. I hadn't looked properly before. The agreement was also voluntarily terminated as hubby could not keep up repayments on the car (which had been sent to a garage as the one and only key had been lost. It was one of those electronic keys and was going to cost more than we could afford. I believe the garage would have sold the car).

Thank you

[Kati]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

If he made a payment to Lowells in 2013 then (I believe) it would have reset the SB clock ... although [MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION] would be able to advise you more

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

I note on the MSE thread that Lowells have told you that the important date is the "default date", and they are relying on that for the start of the 6 years.

As the default date for this account was 9th October 2007, the first payment to us was on 7th June 2013, less than six years from this date. Therefore your debt still exists and legally we are within our rights to continue to ask you for repayment.

[Aymz]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

That is what I'm querying. Was told on MSE that 6 years starts from last payment, and does not have to be default date (did not know at time when default date was). So sent SB letter. Yet Lowell are saying the 6 years runs from default date but I can't find clarification on whether this is now the established thing. If the 6 years starts from ast payment to creditor, then the payment hubby made in 2013 was AFTER the 6 years had gone by. If it goes by default date, then it's within the 6 years (although barely). And what of voluntary termination of the agreement, does this mean anything or not at all?!

[MIKE770]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

last payment + 1 month i.e. as the + 1 month would be the date you faulted/due is a guide line, lowells always try that one & some un educated DJ will believe them because they cannot be bothered to investigate, some may try and tell defendants it is all in the White Book what a joke the white book is out of date on many occasions/subject. still no doubt somebody else will comment.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

Hello, hoping for some more advice.

My husband has a debt from Lowells which he has since believed to be statute barred. He requested paperwork from them. He had statements from Welcome (orginal creditor; loan was for car finance) and statements from Lowell.

Upon looking at it, it seems thatthe last payment to Welcome was 25/5/2007 and hubbys first payment to Lowell was 7/6/13. Upon advice from the MSE forum, we wrote to say the debt is statute barred, as it was over 6 years (albeit not long past). Lowell wrote back to say that the 6 years starts from the default date, and not the date from the last payment to Welcome (as had been advised previously). Went back to MSE to advise of update and one post suggested to come here.

Neither Lowell nor MSE have got the dates right. Lowell always argue about the default date on your credit files being when the clock starts to run, however, that is complete and utter rubbish, :rant: :rant: :mad2: there is nothing in the Limitation Act 1980 that refers to credit reporting, no link between the two, however, if a payment was made in 2013, then that would have reset the clock.

I've looked at a couple of threads on here and now I'm wondering whether the debt is actually statute barred or not. I'd therefore appreciate any advice you could give for this.

Should add, as I was going through the statement from Welcome again, that the last confirmed payment was actually on 26/4/2007 - the payment on 25/5/2007 was a failed direct debit - it came off balance but went back on. I hadn't looked properly before. The agreement was also voluntarily terminated as hubby could not keep up repayments on the car (which had been sent to a garage as the one and only key had been lost. It was one of those electronic keys and was going to cost more than we could afford. I believe the garage would have sold the car).

If he made a payment to Lowells in 2013 then (I believe) it would have reset the SB clock ... although @FlamingParrot would be able to advise you more

:yo:
At first sight those were also my thoughts, however, looking at the above dates, if there was a clear six year period without any payments or written acknowledgment, then it may not have been the case, once a debt is SBd it cannot be 'un-barred', not even by making a payment. Did the failed DD eventually get paid? We are cutting it rather close here, if it can be established that Welcome would have had cause to take action in May 2007 then the debt would have been SBd when the payment was made in June 2013, however we can't be sure. :decision:

I note on the MSE thread that Lowells have told you that the important date is the "default date", and they are relying on that for the start of the 6 years.

They always like to rely on the default date because more often than not, they 'update' the date to when they buy the debt or whatever suits them, however, as you know, that's totally irrelevant. I can't see what the default date is meant to be here, however, if they are arguing about that, they must be unaware of the payment made in 2013. :noidea:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

last payment + 1 month i.e. as the + 1 month would be the date you faulted/due is a guide line, lowells always try that one & some un educated DJ will believe them because they cannot be bothered to investigate, some may try and tell defendants it is all in the White Book what a joke the white book is out of date on many occasions/subject. still no doubt somebody else will comment.

DJs in the county courts are not consumer credit specialists, they hear all sorts of cases, however, I don't know of any cases where the DJ has agreed with the default date on credit files being the cause of action. There was a recent case where the judge ruled that the clock started to tick when a DN was issued which is hardly the same thing, this was only a county court case that does not set precedent and is in the process of being appealed so we'll have to wait and see. :ranger:

As for the Civil Procedure White Book, it's published every year.

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

They always like to rely on the default date because more often than note, they 'update' the date to when they buy the debt or whatever suits them, however, as you know, that's totally irrelevant. I can't see what the default date is meant to be here, however, if they are arguing about that, they must be unaware of the payment made in 2013. :noidea:

I suspect may be referring to the date of a supposed s87 default notice, not a credit file one. They use the same term for both interchangeably, whichever suits their purpose best.

Welcome back then did often take an inordinately long time to issue those as well, so October that year is not out of the question.

However, not enough info in their letter, with the wording we have been given, to say for sure.

Which spurious argument are Lowells relying on this time? Who knows?

But it is correct that this all boils down to whether the debt was already statute barred on 7/6/13 when the 1st payment to Lowells was made.

If it was, then it still is.

If it was not, then that reset the 6 years.

[MIKE770]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

DJs in the county courts are not consumer credit specialists, they hear all sorts of cases, however, I don't know of any cases where the DJ has agreed with the default date on credit files being the cause of action. There was a recent case where the judge ruled that the clock started to tick when a DN was issued which is hardly the same thing, this was only a county court case that does not set precedent and is in the process of being appealed so we'll have to wait and see. :ranger:

As for the Civil Procedure White Book, it's published every year.

Cost

£677.89

[Aymz]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

The payment for 25 May 2007 did not go through then nor ever. The last succesful payment to Welcome was 26 April 2007. The first payment to Lowell was 7 June 2013. So there was no payment or written acknowledgment within 6 years, 1 month and 12 days. If Welcome could have had cause of action from May 2007 when the payment failed, then that is still 6 years...and 13 days! This is where I am getting confused as being told on MSE it starts from last payment, Lowell say from default date, then you guys say not from last payment, nor from default...
Do i write back and stick to the SB argument? Is there any authority for it not being from the default date?

Thanks

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

The payment for 25 May 2007 did not go through then nor ever. The last succesful payment to Welcome was 26 April 2007. The first payment to Lowell was 7 June 2013. So there was no payment or written acknowledgment within 6 years, 1 month and 12 days. If Welcome could have had cause of action from May 2007 when the payment failed, then that is still 6 years...and 13 days! This is where I am getting confused as being told on MSE it starts from last payment, Lowell say from default date, then you guys say not from last payment, nor from default...

It's often hard to work out exactly when the 6 runs from as there are several factors in play.

- Initial cause of action, which for many types of debts would be the date of the first missed payment, but could be more depending on the contact.

then

- You may after that reset the 6 years clock by making a payment/acknowledgement and it then runs from the date of that payment/acknowledgement rather than the next missed one.

So you have initial cause of action first, and a possible re-accrual/resetting of that cause of action, which follow slightly different rules on the dates.

Most common thing to happen in these debt cases is for people to miss some payments but keep trying to pay or catch up, before eventually giving up. In other words an initial cause followed by some resets, resulting in the last payment date being the date to go with. So it's common on forums for people to just say last payment not thinking or realising that it might be otherwise.

It would be otherwise if you made full payment up to a certain date and then just stopped and never paid anything or acknowledge again. In that case it's the initial cause of action without a later reset, so the cause is after x missed payments, not the date of the last.

So to work out the date you usually have to have a pretty good chronology of what happened and what you did.

Sometimes it is as simple as last payment date. In many cases it's not.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

The payment for 25 May 2007 did not go through then nor ever. The last succesful payment to Welcome was 26 April 2007. The first payment to Lowell was 7 June 2013. So there was no payment or written acknowledgment within 6 years, 1 month and 12 days. If Welcome could have had cause of action from May 2007 when the payment failed, then that is still 6 years...and 13 days! This is where I am getting confused as being told on MSE it starts from last payment, Lowell say from default date, then you guys say not from last payment, nor from default...
Do i write back and stick to the SB argument? Is there any authority for it not being from the default date?

Thanks

I don't blame you for being confused!

The Limitation Act doesn't make any reference to default dates or credit reporting, it simply refers to the cause of action. Credit reporting has nothing to do with it, there is not even a legal obligation to report to the credit reference agencies to start with. Default dates are often 'updated' when debts are assigned, this shouldn't be the case and can be challenged, however, this falls under the remit of the ICO (Information Commissioner) and relates to the Data Protection Act, not the Limitation Act, and does not in any way, affect the cause of action.

There is no requirement for a default to be on your credit file for a creditor to take action such as taking you to court. For example, you could owe me money for goods or services that you didn't pay for; I couldn't record a default on your credit file but I could still issue a claim against you in court.

The only argument that has succeeded in court relates to the date a DN was issued, and even that one is in the process of being challenged as mentioned above. ray: I would be inclined to say that this debt was SBd when the payment was made in June 2013. :thumb:

Lowell can argue till the cows come home!

[Aymz]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

I'll stand ground to them then. First missed payment was 25/05/2007 so I'd argue that this is the initial CoA. Absolutely no other contact was made between then and June 2013 so there are no other factors in regards to restarting the clock.

Thank you

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

OK. So you say on your MSE thread that.

I presume they are on about a s87 default.

i.e. default CCA default notice, and not a credit file one.

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell and a borderline statute barred debt.

The only argument that has succeeded in court relates to the date a DN was issued, and even that one is in the process of being challenged as mentioned above. ray:

The one on public view on GAG, then yes. Subject to appeal, but who knows where that will go......