On reading some of the previous posts relating to the voluntary agreement members of the CML have entered into pertaining to the 6 year rule, I am yet to find a case where the Building Society has given up their claim ONLY on the fact that they are time expired. I have come across cases where their pursuits for the shortfall debts has ceased when the defendants have brought to their attention that they are time expired BUT only where there are other factors involved. Namely the building society realises they have insufficient evidence and will probably loose anyway.(posted 7345 days ago)An extremely helpful get out clause the building societies (or their agents) have, is the fact that they can always claim to have instigated their pursuit prior to the 6 years from property sale. ‘We’ve been writing to you at various addresses for the past X years’ is a common sight in the letters solicitors write. A fact that cannot be proved either way but one that apparently stands up in front of a judge. Consequently, in the event of a defendant being chased after six years there is little hope that this rule alone will be sufficient to exonerate them. (If the society believes it has got any chance of getting any money) Or does it? I would be keen to know of any successful cases where the building societies have backed down after a defendant has brought to their attention the 6 year ruling and there are no other factors known to be involved. I would also be grateful for any sample letters people have written either to building societies or solicitors relating to time expiry. Be it the 6 year CML code or the 12 year limitations act.
Many thanks
Paul