My husband has today received a letter from Thames Credit. Not much detail in the letter just says that they have been trying to contact him at a previous address (we've been at our current address for just over 4 years now) and that he should contact them asap. He did this this evening (before I got in from work!) and they informed him that he has an outstanding debt from 9 years ago with Currys. He had only just got up (he works nights) so wasn't really with it (plus I wasn't there to stop him!) and he agreed over the phone to pay 2 payments (Nov & Dec). Didn't ask for any proof - this was from his first marriage and he can't really remember anything about it. They said that payments were being made regularly and then they just stopped which would have been when they split up. His ex-wife has never passed any mail onto him - he sees her every week when he picks his son up. He can only think (can't remember) that the direct debit was set up to come out of her bank account although it was, obviously, in his name as he still his Barclay's account open although he doesn't use it.
I/we don't understand why this has just come to light. His IVA was completed in December 2007 and this obviously wasn't included as I for one didn't know anything about it.
My question is is this still valid or is it statute barred according to the Limitatios Act? He is going to phone them again tomorrow to try and stop payment being taken.
Thank you very much for listening and I look forward to your responses.
If the creditor have made no attempts to collect the debt for at least the last six years, then it may well be outside the Statute of Limitations, and therefore not enforceable. But that does not stop your husband paying it if he acknowledges that the debt is due.
Thank you for your quick response. How would we be able to find out whether they have made attempts - would it be against his credit report?
They have made no attempt to contact him at our address and like I say we've been there for just over 4 years and he's on the electoral roll. It just seems to come out of the blue.
He will pay it as well as having it out with his ex-wife, we just wanted to know where we stand.
If they can demonstrate that they were sending correspondence to a previous addres - bearing in mind that your husband had a duty to notify them of any changes in circumstances, then the claim may be a good one - but interestingly it could have been captured under the terms of the IVA had the case not been closed.
This cannot happen now, as the IVA does not exist any more.
Thank you Melanie, I will print this out for him ready for when he phones tomorrow. That is exactly what I told him about the address change - I didn't know at that time
I also don't agree with his ex-wife not passing on any mail or telling him about this beforehand.
Melanie even if the IVA case has closed surely the creditor will still be caught within it. The fact that he was unaware does not allow him to persue the debtor. However what was the dividend and a practical suggestion would be to offer the same p in the £ that all others received - since if debtor new of the debt it would have originally been included!
Regards, David Mond, Insolvency Practitioner for over 46 years. Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year 2012, Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year finalist 2013 & 2014 awarded by Insolvency & Rescue Magazine and 2015 finalist for Personal Insolvency Firm of the Year.
Hopefully this is academic but I wonder if the Statute of Limitations is overruled because the gentleman may be considered to have admitted the debt, starting the clock ticking again.
Only if been in communication within the 6 year rule.
Regards, David Mond, Insolvency Practitioner for over 46 years. Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year 2012, Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year finalist 2013 & 2014 awarded by Insolvency & Rescue Magazine and 2015 finalist for Personal Insolvency Firm of the Year.
I don't know the answer to that one I am afraid - if the creditor was left out, and not circulated, and not paid a dividend I am not sure the arguement that they were bound would be valid - but agree that your practical solution is probably the best way forward. No-one could then argue unfair prejudice.
Regards, David Mond, Insolvency Practitioner for over 46 years. Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year 2012, Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year finalist 2013 & 2014 awarded by Insolvency & Rescue Magazine and 2015 finalist for Personal Insolvency Firm of the Year.
Section 260 of the Insolvency Act makes it clear that if a debt, which would have been rightly bound by the IVA, was left out of the proceedings - and the proceedings have been concluded, then the creditor is no longer bound by the proceedings and is free to pursue the debtor directly for the amount which they would have been entitled to receive within the proceedings.
So your husband will probably have to pay the equivalent of the dividend this creditor would have received, unless he can successfully argue on a Statute of Limitations point.
