• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

**WON** Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • **WON** Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

    Received a claim? Yes
    Issue Date: 5 aug 2016
    Amount approx: £3068
    Claimant: Arrow Global Limited
    Solicitor: Retsons Solicitors Limited
    Original Creditor: Sainburys Bank
    Particulars of Claim: The Claimant claims payment of an overdue balance due from the Defendant(s) under a contract between the Defendant(s) and Sainsburys bank plc dated on or about Jul 05 2006 and assigned to the claimant on Jul 14 2011
    PARTICULARS a/c no - 5286xxxxxxxxx
    DATE ITEM VALUE
    16/3/2016 Default Balance 3068
    Post Refrl Cr NIL
    TOTAL 3068

    Is the debt Statute Barred? - no mention on claim form- but we think it is- as last payment made over 6yrs ago
    List any letters you have sent: No correspondance
    Any Other Info:
    we will do Ack of Ser and ask for extension of time, and also use CPR 31.14 request
    but shall we put in our Notice to Claimant that it is statute barred and request evidence showing its NOT?
    also
    we have letter from Sainsbuys 16/11/2010(before it was
    assigned ) stating that ' I can confirm your balance was written off on 2nd Sept 2010 and we are no longer pursuing you for this amount.'This wording surly is a defence in itself as they acknowledge debt written of and no longer pursuing it- so how can they sell/assign a debt they have written off? - this is country to GAAP- accounting principles and would be fraud

    Any advice from those more legally minded would be great

    FYI i did a successful CPR31.4 claim against Lowells in 2014(for a CC claim they started) with help from Forum and Kate- got Order (we drew up) to be enforced without going to court as Lowells never provided any docs, so were time barred from pursuing claim- intact they just disappeared- has the law on CPR31.4 request and then further enforcing with a N244 Application etc changed since 2014?

    Many Thanks

    si
    "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking
    and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution
    before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford

    Fiat currency- the curse of modern money system
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

    Hi

    Thinking on wording of Particulars of claim- it states 'under a contract..'

    yet we never had a contract but was it not an agreement?
    does this make a difference in law, and more importantly within court?
    as all they MAY provide is a copy of a credit card AGREEMENT, but never a contract

    Secondly - i am aware that CCA on credit cards pre 2007(which this was) a lot were unenforceable due to not being CCA compliant - is that claim still applicable ? can a court case be made on unenforceable agreement ?

    Thanks in advance for answers to these 2 extra points

    Si
    "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking
    and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution
    before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford

    Fiat currency- the curse of modern money system

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

      Hello,

      Could you explain what you mean by the GAAP accounting principles?

      The general rule in law is that just because something is "written off" does not mean it is unenforceable and the courts will still recognise it if it is not statute barred. That being said, the letter you received from Sainsburys could be helpful in that as part of your defence you could say that the Claimant is estopped from bringing a claim as the assignor has waived their right to claim damages to which you relied upon. The words "we will no longer be pursuing you for this amount" is clear and unequivocal. Alternatively it is an estoppel by respresentation in that they represented to you indicating that the amount would no longer be pursued which you relied upon and they have gone back on their representation by selling the debt to a third party.

      I suspect Arrow / Restons will deny this and say an assignment passes the benefit not the burden however under s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 says the following:

      Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice
      The bit I have highlighted in red is what you would use as your defence. Subject to equities means that despite the agreement being assigned to another party, any defences or rights you have with the original creditor can be used against the third party. So for example, if you are owed £500 and the creditor assigns it to a third party who brings proceedings, you will have a defence of set off against the third party.


      CPR 31.14 hasn't changed at all, you may also wish to send a CCA request to Arrow (in the green box at the top of page), £1 postal order made out as for the "statutory fee only". In your request you could also request a full breakdown of the alleged amount owed. Your CPR 31.14 (to Restons) will need to be a separate letter to the CCA request (which goes to Arrow).

      Contract / agreement means the same thing in law as long as you have an offer, an acceptance, consideration (monies in most cases) and intention to be legally bound. Its just an interchangeable word.

      If the agreement was executed pre 2007 then the legislation of the CCA at the time will apply and I think you might be referring to s.127 (now repealed) and I think the relevant case law was Wilson v First County Trust Ltd 2003 which said something about if the prescribed terms are not correct then it becomes irredeemably unenforceable or something to that effect.


      I've tagged @nemesis45 for more assistance.
      If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      LEGAL DISCLAIMER
      Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

        Originally posted by R0b View Post
        Hello,

        Could you explain what you mean by the GAAP accounting principles?

        The general rule in law is that just because something is "written off" does not mean it is unenforceable and the courts will still recognise it if it is not statute barred. That being said, the letter you received from Sainsburys could be helpful in that as part of your defence you could say that the Claimant is estopped from bringing a claim as the assignor has waived their right to claim damages to which you relied upon. The words "we will no longer be pursuing you for this amount" is clear and unequivocal. Alternatively it is an estoppel by respresentation in that they represented to you indicating that the amount would no longer be pursued which you relied upon and they have gone back on their representation by selling the debt to a third party.

        I suspect Arrow / Restons will deny this and say an assignment passes the benefit not the burden however under s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 says the following:



        The bit I have highlighted in red is what you would use as your defence. Subject to equities means that despite the agreement being assigned to another party, any defences or rights you have with the original creditor can be used against the third party. So for example, if you are owed £500 and the creditor assigns it to a third party who brings proceedings, you will have a defence of set off against the third party.


        CPR 31.14 hasn't changed at all, you may also wish to send a CCA request to Arrow (in the green box at the top of page), £1 postal order made out as for the "statutory fee only". In your request you could also request a full breakdown of the alleged amount owed. Your CPR 31.14 (to Restons) will need to be a separate letter to the CCA request (which goes to Arrow).

        Contract / agreement means the same thing in law as long as you have an offer, an acceptance, consideration (monies in most cases) and intention to be legally bound. Its just an interchangeable word.

        If the agreement was executed pre 2007 then the legislation of the CCA at the time will apply and I think you might be referring to s.127 (now repealed) and I think the relevant case law was Wilson v First County Trust Ltd 2003 which said something about if the prescribed terms are not correct then it becomes irredeemably unenforceable or something to that effect.


        I've tagged @nemesis45 for more assistance.
        Thanks for the above info ROb
        • GAAP- general accepted accounting principles- basically statute law for accounting -so if a company writes of a debt it is included in its accounts and used as an expense and taken into account for profit, and tax- they can't write off a debt then sell it- that is fraud and the IR will need to investigate
        • the points on sec 136 Lpa 1925 are helpful and will def use if need to goto court
        • yes to prescribed terms not correct- there were many firms using this a few years ago, saying if your CC was pre 2007 they COULD write off debt as a lot of CC companies didn't have the prescribed terms correct- such as a signature from creditor, or the certain wording being formatted correctly- BUT you say this has now been repealed?
        • Basically i will do pre court stuff CPR 31.4 and CCA request to each party, but need to know which line of defence(if req) i should go for 1st - the letter from Sainsburys 'written off' seems to be strongest- and although the courts are totally biased to creditors, surly a DDJ can't gee ruling with such a blatant statement from original creditor???????
        • Any more info on the unenforceable contract pre 2007- prescribed terms , would be gratefully received

        Many thanks

        simon
        "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking
        and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution
        before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford

        Fiat currency- the curse of modern money system

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

          Each credit agreement/contract has in its terms and conditions at some point saying that the creditor may if it deems is necessary sell/assign it rights in the agreement to a 3rd party such "sales " are made under the provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925.

          The debt is written of the creditors books because it has been sold to a debt purchaser for a percentage of it's face value.

          I absolutely sure the HMRC and the FCA would have been quick to act if your theory was of merit.

          Even some pre April 2007 debts are being enforced with the provision of recon agreement and English Civil Law is based upon the " balance of probabilities" as seen by a judge.

          Personally I don't think your defence based on these grounds will be successful.

          nem

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

            Hi
            Thanks for info and input Nemisis45

            Just further info on the 'written off debt' tact
            the letter as stated above was dated 16/11/10 stating debt written off on 2/9/10 and no longer pursuing you for debt
            then a letter from Sainsurys again stating balance was SOLD to Arrow on 21/4/11 - some 7 months AFTER they claimed it was written off

            In accounting(i use to be accountant ) you can NOT write off a debt THEN sell the same 7 months later- if something is written off- it is classed as loss for balance sheet and tax purposes
            If the dates were the same then there may be a case to say written off and sold maybe the same, but as a 7 month gap between the 2 then surely a court can not rule that in favour of claimant in this scenario

            THOUGHTS please....

            Simon
            "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking
            and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution
            before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford

            Fiat currency- the curse of modern money system

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

              Originally posted by time2burn View Post
              Hi
              Thanks for info and input Nemisis45

              Just further info on the 'written off debt' tact
              the letter as stated above was dated 16/11/10 stating debt written off on 2/9/10 and no longer pursuing you for debt
              then a letter from Sainsurys again stating balance was SOLD to Arrow on 21/4/11 - some 7 months AFTER they claimed it was written off

              In accounting(i use to be accountant ) you can NOT write off a debt THEN sell the same 7 months later- if something is written off- it is classed as loss for balance sheet and tax purposes
              If the dates were the same then there may be a case to say written off and sold maybe the same, but as a 7 month gap between the 2 then surely a court can not rule that in favour of claimant in this scenario

              THOUGHTS please....

              Simon
              Hello Simon Creditors sell debts in Portfolio Lots not individually, so the NOA is sent when the is sold which may be some months on.

              As you will see on many threads here the debt may not be pursued by a debt purchaser for years e.g. " The debt was assigned to the claimant on xx x 2011 "

              It's common and there's nothing unlawful in this situation.

              nem

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

                Just to add to the point nemesis has made, if the debt is written off on a balance sheet and tax purposes does not make the debt statute barred. Unless the GAAP rules are set out in legislation and that particular legislation says once a debt is written off by a company it cannot be sold on or is deemed statute barred then the claim can be assigned and sold on.

                The issue you are raising is a tax and financial one which as above, does not affect the the right to bring a claim. In fact I think there is already case law out there that says written off debts do not mean statute barred but I'd have to look for the specific case.

                As I've said though, there is perhaps a defence of reliance on the fact that they have said this matter won't be pursued anymore and not because it's just written off
                If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                LEGAL DISCLAIMER
                Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

                  Originally posted by R0b View Post

                  As I've said though, there is perhaps a defence of reliance on the fact that they have said this matter won't be pursued anymore and not because it's just written off
                  ........and we are no longer pursuing you for this amount
                  Would this legally preclude someone else from pursuing it?
                  CAVEAT LECTOR

                  This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

                  You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
                  Cohen, Herb


                  There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
                  gets his brain a-going.
                  Phelps, C. C.


                  "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
                  The last words of John Sedgwick

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

                    They say " We will not pursue any more " not the no one will pursue any more.

                    nem

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

                      Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
                      Would this legally preclude someone else from pursuing it?
                      It would be an equitable estoppel - either estoppel by representation which is similar to a misrepresentation. For example, A owes B £500 and B communicates to A that he will no longer pursue the remaning outstanding balance (£100 lets say) and A relies on that position. B decides 9 months down the line that he wants to recover the remaining £100 and issues proceedings against A. A's defence is that B is estopped from bringing a claim because of A's reliance.

                      Estoppel by representation requires the following

                      1. A representation which is made by A to B
                      2. the representation made A is contradicted by another representation or intention of A
                      3. the original representation by A induced B to rely on the represenation
                      4. A has changed their orignal position to B's detriment.

                      Then you have estoppel by waiver i.e. A has certain rights and obligations under a contract and because A indicates something to B which indicates their intention to waive any particular right or obligation, then it could be said that A has potentially waived their right. Examples of waiver could be where a deadline is not met under the contract, goods which are defective but nonetheless are accepted, a breach of a contractual term such as payment and instead of terminating the breach is affirmed (note, just because a breach is affirmed does not mean that damages for the breach is automatically waived - you can waive the breach and still claim damages).

                      So there's two options here and I think estoppel by representation is a better chance than waiver but still also worht pleading because it estoppel by representation is not agreed by the court they may still agree that there has been a waiver. For waiver of estoppel you would have to say argue that the words and conduct of the letter "not pursue you anymore" amounts to a waiver of their right to bring a claim.

                      Despite the fact that its been sold on, the OP can still rely on that defence.
                      If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      LEGAL DISCLAIMER
                      Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

                        Originally posted by R0b View Post
                        It would be an equitable estoppel - either estoppel by representation which is similar to a misrepresentation. For example, A owes B £500 and B communicates to A that he will no longer pursue the remaning outstanding balance (£100 lets say) and A relies on that position. B decides 9 months down the line that he wants to recover the remaining £100 and issues proceedings against A. A's defence is that B is estopped from bringing a claim because of A's reliance.

                        Estoppel by representation requires the following

                        1. A representation which is made by A to B
                        2. the representation made A is contradicted by another representation or intention of A
                        3. the original representation by A induced B to rely on the represenation
                        4. A has changed their orignal position to B's detriment.

                        Then you have estoppel by waiver i.e. A has certain rights and obligations under a contract and because A indicates something to B which indicates their intention to waive any particular right or obligation, then it could be said that A has potentially waived their right. Examples of waiver could be where a deadline is not met under the contract, goods which are defective but nonetheless are accepted, a breach of a contractual term such as payment and instead of terminating the breach is affirmed (note, just because a breach is affirmed does not mean that damages for the breach is automatically waived - you can waive the breach and still claim damages).

                        So there's two options here and I think estoppel by representation is a better chance than waiver but still also worht pleading because it estoppel by representation is not agreed by the court they may still agree that there has been a waiver. For waiver of estoppel you would have to say argue that the words and conduct of the letter "not pursue you anymore" amounts to a waiver of their right to bring a claim.

                        Despite the fact that its been sold on, the OP can still rely on that defence.
                        Thanks for all above - as always we see how the law stinks and justice and fairness have nothing to do with court proceedings and outcome!
                        Anyway REALLY appreciate your detailed knowledge on these matters - will see what happens with initial stages of CPR31.4 request etc and take it from there - the above on estoppel seems a good route based on my paperwork along with other defences- 1st lets see what actual paperwork ARROW/Restons actually produce

                        Thanks again for a good community - this really does help

                        Kind regards
                        simon
                        "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking
                        and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution
                        before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford

                        Fiat currency- the curse of modern money system

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

                          Unfortunately I don't think the court process is to blame, the majority of times judges only see the information on the day and are not going to do the jobs of lawyers or litigants in person (but may sometimes assist) in querying the claim before them. Judgments are almost always based on the evidence before them on a balance of probabilities so really it is the debt purchasers in this case who push their luck in trying to obtain payment (some may say fraudulently) where cases may be statute barred or cannot be brought for other reasons.

                          They buy debts in bulk and probably go through the list issuing claims without verifying the merits of the case on the basis debtors will succumb to their demands. Fortunately, recent case law has allowed defendants to bring claims for malicious prosecution (slightly different to abuse of process) where claimants are bringing cases which are considered groundless e.g. statute barred. This sort of overlaps with the argument of an abuse of process where the courts have held that if a claimant decides not to do any investigatory work prior to commencing legal proceedings, and have no evidence or rely on the hope that something might turn up during the course of proceedings then this is an abuse of process. Counterclaims for this should be pleaded by defendants to (hopefully) make debt purchasers re-think their strategy of issuing in bulk.

                          That being said, you do need to make a note that your defence will need to be submitted no later than 7 September as I calculate providing you have acknowledged the claim (33 days from the date of issue). This is on the basis that an extension of time is not agreed by Restons.

                          In fact, subject to what their response is, it might be worth providing a copy of the letter supplied by Sainsburys to Restons inviting them to withdraw, that way if they press on and continue then you could potentially claim more than fixed costs on the basis that they had the opportunity to withdraw at an earlier stage and wasted court time and resources.

                          Anyway, there's no harm in starting to prepare your defence already based on the information you have right now, a lot of people underestimate how long it takes to draft defences and witness statements and often get rushed. Presenting a well laid out and thoughtful defence not only shows the other side you mean business but also to the judge.
                          If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          LEGAL DISCLAIMER
                          Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

                            Hi ROb
                            actually that was 1 of my other questions - if i should show my hand with the sainsurys letter or not prior to proceedings?
                            but was going to, prior to submitting defence but AFTER they replied to CPR31.4 request.
                            i have also issued them a statute barred notice(separately ) - Limitation Act1980 and stated they can't bring court claim if statute barred and asked for evidence to show otherwise - see what they give there

                            Again thanks all so far
                            si
                            "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking
                            and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution
                            before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford

                            Fiat currency- the curse of modern money system

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Arrow(Restons) Credit Card Claim - think statute barred

                              Originally posted by R0b View Post
                              Unfortunately I don't think the court process is to blame, the majority of times judges only see the information on the day and are not going to do the jobs of lawyers or litigants in person (but may sometimes assist) in querying the claim before them. Judgments are almost always based on the evidence before them on a balance of probabilities so really it is the debt purchasers in this case who push their luck in trying to obtain payment (some may say fraudulently) where cases may be statute barred or cannot be brought for other reasons.

                              They buy debts in bulk and probably go through the list issuing claims without verifying the merits of the case on the basis debtors will succumb to their demands. Fortunately, recent case law has allowed defendants to bring claims for malicious prosecution (slightly different to abuse of process) where claimants are bringing cases which are considered groundless e.g. statute barred. This sort of overlaps with the argument of an abuse of process where the courts have held that if a claimant decides not to do any investigatory work prior to commencing legal proceedings, and have no evidence or rely on the hope that something might turn up during the course of proceedings then this is an abuse of process. Counterclaims for this should be pleaded by defendants to (hopefully) make debt purchasers re-think their strategy of issuing in bulk.

                              That being said, you do need to make a note that your defence will need to be submitted no later than 7 September as I calculate providing you have acknowledged the claim (33 days from the date of issue). This is on the basis that an extension of time is not agreed by Restons.

                              In fact, subject to what their response is, it might be worth providing a copy of the letter supplied by Sainsburys to Restons inviting them to withdraw, that way if they press on and continue then you could potentially claim more than fixed costs on the basis that they had the opportunity to withdraw at an earlier stage and wasted court time and resources.

                              Anyway, there's no harm in starting to prepare your defence already based on the information you have right now, a lot of people underestimate how long it takes to draft defences and witness statements and often get rushed. Presenting a well laid out and thoughtful defence not only shows the other side you mean business but also to the judge.
                              Spot on [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] !!!!!

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.

                              Announcement

                              Collapse

                              Support LegalBeagles


                              Donate with PayPal button

                              LegalBeagles is a free forum, founded in May 2007, providing legal guidance and support to consumers and SME's across a range of legal areas.

                              See more
                              See less

                              Court Claim ?

                              Guides and Letters
                              Loading...



                              Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

                              Find a Law Firm


                              Working...
                              X