Why Statute Barred doesn't let you run away from your debts

StepChange Debt Charity
by Lovemoney Staff StepChange Debt Charity on 04 February 2012  |  Comments 6 comments

Statute Barred is a piece of legislation which some think allows you to run away from your debts. That's a dangerous myth!

Why Statute Barred doesn't let you run away from your debts

We’ve all seen the adverts that promise to "get your debt written off” in some remarkably easy way. Usually these are fee-charging companies that are trying to get people to take out formal debt solutions such as individual voluntary arrangements or bankruptcy.

It’s true in both cases that some debt could be written off, but neither could be described as a free and easy ride.

So what’s the alternative? Can you just do a bunk to Iberia?

You probably know a bloke down the pub with a tan like a leather handbag who boasts that he did a midnight flit to Spain to escape his debts a few years ago and has come back with a magically clean credit report.

It’s not that easy, but there’s a piece of legislation called Statute Barred, part of the Limitation Act, that some try to use in these situations. This is the only real piece of debt law that could see your debt deemed unenforceable, after a period of six years.

Statute Barred

Creditors are unable to legally pursue you for the debt if, after six years:

  • They have not already obtained a county court judgment (CCJ);
  • You or any one else owing the money (say on a debt in joint names) have not made a payment; or
  • You have not written to the creditor admitting you owe the debt.

So, could you ignore the creditors and not pay them anything for six years?

Despite the debt myths that have grown up around Statute Barred and the Limitations Act that wouldn’t actually work.

As the above explanation suggests, if you start to ignore your creditors they’re liable to get in touch with you rather quickly. They may even do this through the courts by obtaining a County Court Judgment (CCJ) or other debt collection procedure available to them.

Could you move house and not tell them?

That wouldn’t work either as it’s your responsibility to keep your creditors updated with your current address. Moving house and not telling your creditors where you’ve gone is seen as debt avoidance. This is never recommended.

Running away to Spain

The Act isn’t there to encourage debt avoidance or non payment and most judges will take a dim view of this tactic. It’s there to protect people from being forced to pay debts that have ‘timed out’ through no fault of their own.

The money owed is not written off; it’s still a debt and in reality it still exists, but with the Act in force the creditor can no longer enforce the debt and take you to court.

The important thing to remember is that there are laws to protect you from being chased for very old debts that you weren’t aware of.

However, it’s vitally important to realise that these laws cannot be twisted to help you get away without paying your debts.

Your debts won’t disappear

We find our clients are genuine in wanting to do their best to repay as much as they can afford to their creditors. In turn we want to do our best to give you the correct advice and guide you through the maze of legislation while being impartial and honest at all times.

If you are desperate enough to start looking for ways to escape your unmanageable debt you might want to use on online debt help tool like the CCCS Debt Remedy to find a solution to your problem quickly.

We’re here to help the ‘can’t pays’ rather than the ‘won’t pays’. If you’re thinking of taking a six-year Spanish holiday to escape your debt nightmare think again; you might be eating paella a lot longer than you imagined.

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (6)

  • bengilda
    Love rating 80
    bengilda said

    Those who accumulate debt should always be held personally responsible for that debt, regardless of whether the debt was accumulated on behalf of a thrid party or for themself - unless it was unfairly or improperly advertised or contracted or unless it had an unfair and excessive AER interest.

    If one is responsible enough to take out a loan or otherwise accumulate a debt then one must be considered responsible enough to repay it. Unpaid debt should never "time out" nor be allowed to be devalued by inflation.

    Report on 04 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 373
    CuNNaXXa said

    It is also a responsibility for those supplying the credit to ensure that those who are borrowing have the means to repay that debt. Long gone are the days of instant credit with no guarantees. Our banks have shown us the folly of throwing money at people or companies that have no chance of ever repaying a single penny.

    Report on 04 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • amwell44
    Love rating 40
    amwell44 said

    Seems to be some confusion on the author's part. "Statute Barred" is a description of the situation when the Statute of Limitations takes effect, generally, but not always, after six years. The possibility of litigation is said to be "statute barred", i.e. the wronged party can no longer sue, because they have left it too late. That is why credit reference agencies keep details for six years only.

    Anyone hoping for the statute of limitations to help them escape their debts would be living on another planet.

    As others have said, it's simple. Pay what you owe and whatever your situation, communicate with your creditors.

    Report on 05 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • shortchanged
    Love rating 17
    shortchanged said

    So what happens if a company hounds you for several years for a debt you are sure you never had, from a company you have never heard of? Despite telling them that you owe nothng, they still keep writing and threatening. Going to a solcitor would cost more than the fake debt, but I don't wish to be blackmailed into paying a debt I don't owe. What protection does someone have then?

    Report on 05 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 373
    CuNNaXXa said

    @ shortchanged...

    To prove a debt, they would need to show documents, such as Terms and Conditions, that you have signed, showing what you are borrowing, and what you have to pay back.

    Just because someone says that you owe them money isn't proof. They need to back up such a claim with proof.

    Report on 07 February 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • edwardmk2879
    Love rating 57
    edwardmk2879 said

    Debt is the responsibility of the person who incurred the debt, and people should not be trying to dodge repayments. However, your life is what happens to you while you're making plans, so when you lose your job or get sick the rose tinted specs fall off pretty quickly and reality bites hard.

    There is a spectrum of debtors from those who through no fault of their own are genuinely unable to pay, right through to habitual fraudsters who never intended to pay anything back. However, I feel a growing problem now is irresponsible lending and unfair contracts and interest rates, which are mushrooming as people get more desperate. This tars the whole financial sector, causing people to question why they should pay back debts honoroubly if the financial sector behaves dishonourably.

    Credit cards with APR's over 4000% being advertised on TV. Mainstream credit card companies invoking the small print 'allowing' them to raise interest rates so that many hard pressed families are suddenly on store card rates of 30% and above. Dreadful decisions by homeowners to 'secure' debt against their house equity. The financial market place is savage and uncompromising to those who get into trouble, and many of the companies are guilty of the biblical phrase 'putting a stumbling block in front of the blind'.

    The Domesday book warned about monopoly power, and the financial sector now has many examples of this. 'Too big to fail Banks' are bailed out by the taxpayer, thus socialising the losses, privatising the profits and bonuses, and dodging moral hazard. Financial companies should not be allowed to get 'too big too fail.' Moral hazard would return to lending if irresponsible lenders were allowed to fail. More effort is required to ban dodgy practices like 4000% apr or lending to people who can't afford the debt. Finally, if our own dear successive governments would set an example of responsible borrowing, many of the problems of unaffordable debts would then disappear.

    Report on 09 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (2.98% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.9% to 2.98% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (2.47% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.5% to 2.47% (T&Cs apply)

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest