Debt Write Off Period

Vinny Hegarty

Sometime in the mid 90's I had a credit card (from a main Irish bank) on which I failed to keep up regular repayments, I subsequently ended up owing about £500 punts on it at which point the card was cancelled, & I received solicitors letters threating legal action, I agreed to pay a small amount each month to clear the debt, of which I paid some, over the following years I moved through many address & never received futhure demands & presumed the debt written off.

Last week, 14/15 years later I received a letter from same said solicitors demanding payment which they inform me now amounts to €3750.


Is there a legal time period during which a bank /debt collection agency/solicitors can legally pursue a debt?

I thought I remember reading somewhere it was five years.




V.

Formal shorts

I'm open to correction on this, but as far as I'm aware there is a statute of limitations on unsecured debt. If you haven't acknowledged the debt in more than 6 years, it is statute barred and cannot be persued.

However, if you do acknowledge the debt, this bar is lifted and they can come after you again. So, if you ignore it, they can't enforce it.

I could be entirely wrong about this! I'd suggest contacting your local citizens information centre and arranging a free legal advice meeting to get a definitive answer. I don't want to be held accountable for wrong info!

dotsman

Yeah, would love if someone could say for certain (with reference to the law/official website etc) how exactly the statue of limitations works in the case of debt.

My understanding was that the statute applies 6 years after the expiry date of the loan. However, if this is a credit card debt, then it is possible that this is revolving credit, therefore there is no expiry date, so the debt still stands (and continues rising).

Not sure to be honest. Would love for someone to clarify.

Anyone

Why not pay your debt instead of looking for another way to avoid it?

Blackjack

Vinny Hegarty wrote: »

coupled with the fact I will most likely pay this amount and more in extra taxes keeping this bank afloat over the next decade begs the question....

Coupled with the fact that the reason the banks are in trouble is largely because people borrowed money and either could not or simply will not pay it back.

You wouldn't do something like that now would you?

danbohan

Blackjack wrote: »

Coupled with the fact that the reason the banks are in trouble is largely because people borrowed money and either could not or simply will not pay it back.

You wouldn't do something like that now would you?[/QUOTE

what a naive load '''''''''''', the reason the banks are in trouble is due to their own greed and mismanagement nothing to do with small debts like this guy .

Vinny Hegarty

Anyone wrote: »

Why not pay your debt instead of looking for another way to avoid it?

Would you pay a debt your not legally required to pay?

Sasquatch76

Vinny Hegarty wrote: »

Would you pay a debt your not legally required to pay?

Thing is, you didn't pay it when you WERE legally required to pay.

Vinny Hegarty

Sasquatch76 wrote: »

Thing is, you didn't pay it when you WERE legally required to pay.

If it transpires I am legally required to pay it, I will pay.
If not, I won't.

dotsman

Vinny Hegarty wrote: »

Would you pay a debt your not legally required to pay?

Yes. Ever borrow anything from a friend? There probably wasn't any contract there so nothing to legally requiring you to repay.

Are you saying the only reason to obey the law is because it is enforced? If it suddenly became legal to kill/rape/steal, would you go out tomorrow and commit these acts?

You're trying to find a loophole in the law to get around your legal obligations. Don't think of it in any other way.

Vinny Hegarty wrote: »

coupled with the fact I will most likely pay this amount and more in extra taxes keeping this bank afloat over the next decade begs the question....

You aren't paying any extra taxes now to support the banks. Trying to speculate if you will or not at some time in the future is pointless.

danbohan wrote: »

Blackjack wrote: »

Coupled with the fact that the reason the banks are in trouble is largely because people borrowed money and either could not or simply will not pay it back.

You wouldn't do something like that now would you?

what a naive load '''''''''''', the reason the banks are in trouble is due to their own greed and mismanagement nothing to do with small debts like this guy .

"Greed and mismanagement". That great term used by those who don't understand what happened in this country over the past 10 years. The OP is very much at the heart of the banking crisis. We may only hear the names of the people who owe millions, but there is absolutely nothing different between the OP and any property developer out there except the figures involved.

Anyway, not going to drag this off-topic any more than it has. Am still looking (as is the OP) for someone to clarify the statute of limitations in this case.

Vinny Hegarty

I have no scruples when it comes to not paying.

I have no interest in debating with other posters the ethics of business.

The only question I require an answer on is in the original post.

If you don't have one, don't reply.

jhegarty

6 years since you last acknowledged the debt.

Vinny Hegarty

Gratis

Blackjack

danbohan wrote: »

what a naive load '''''''''''', the reason the banks are in trouble is due to their own greed and mismanagement nothing to do with small debts like this guy .

No, the reasons the Banks are in trouble is because the lent to people who can't or unscrulous characters who won't pay back what they owe.

Sleipnir

jhegarty wrote: »

7 years since you last acknowledged the debt.

So, all you have to do is ignore them for seven years and you don't ever have to pay it back? Bye, bye mortgage!

jhegarty

Sleipnir wrote: »

So, all you have to do is ignore them for seven years and you don't ever have to pay it back? Bye, bye mortgage!

A mortgage is different because they have your house has security.

They could have also taken the op to court during the 6 years.

danbohan

Blackjack wrote: »

No, the reasons the Banks are in trouble is because the lent to people who can't or unscrulous characters who won't pay back what they owe.

exactly , and thats down to bad management at all levels in the banks

GerardKeating

Sleipnir wrote: »

So, all you have to do is ignore them for seven years and you don't ever have to pay it back? Bye, bye mortgage!

Nope, it's seven years since they last nagged you about it, so a letter to you every year or so keeps the debt alive.

Blackjack

danbohan wrote: »

exactly , and thats down to bad management at all levels in the banks

Or people not paying their debts. You're right, they should never have lent to these people, however these people should also never borrowed these monies in the first instance. It's a 2 way street, people can't always blame the banks for their own financial failures.

enno99

15 years what a joke

are they bringing up these corpses so they can screw more money from NAMA

dotsman

enno99 wrote: »

15 years what a joke

are they bringing up these corpses so they can screw more money from NAMA

No.

Nothing whatsoever to do with NAMA. I'd suggest that you read up on NAMA (not the tabloid's version) and try to understand what it is trying to do, how it is going about doing it and what are the positive/negative benefits/risks associated with it.

It's possibly the single biggest commitment by an Irish Government since joining Europe. It's intention is solid, and can work. The negatives for NAMA is the risk associated with it. However, that is countered by the risks associated with not having NAMA. Yet the vast majority of people in this country know nothing about it, nor do they want to. As long as they can read the tabloids and moan about it they are happy.

PS. I'm not even all that Pro-NAMA, I just believe the positives outweigh the negatives and over 18 months later, nobody has suggested a better alternative.

Anyway, we're going way off topic here. This is definitely a discussion for another thread.

Toots

GerardKeating wrote: »

Nope, it's seven years since they last nagged you about it, so a letter to you every year or so keeps the debt alive.

I'd be more inclined to think this would be the correct answer. TBH it would probably be worth your while to consult a solicitor on this so you'll have a definite answer and also you'll know how to procede from there.

jhegarty

Sorry , correcting my previous post it's actually 6 years , not 7.

Sending a letter is not enough , the person must acknowledge the loan for the 6 years to restart.