Statute of Limitations V Bankruptcy

[brenbrady]

Interesting conversation on another thread Re bankruptcy in NI. One of the topics that came out of the thread which there seemed to be some ambiguity around was Statute of Limitations versus bankruptcy. I never really thought of statute of limitations as a viable option due to the possibility of lenders reactivating the statute every few years but some posters seemed to of the opinion that the lenders will take a pragmatic approach when dealing with people low levels of income and no assets. Curious to know what other posters opinion is in this regard and would statute of limitations be a viable option.
Personally, If I was in this scenario I would be very reluctant to go for statute of limitations for the reason that it appears to be too ambiguous in terms of when does statute actually start and also the possibility of being on tenterhooks for six years wondering if the lenders would reactivate this every few years.

Maybe some other posters could shed some light on the above or what are the opinions on statute of limitations in general?

 

[Time]

The statute of limitations is not a magic bullet.

Even if the 6 years pass, the bank can keep writing away demanding the money. If you acknowledge the debt or make a payment the 6 year limit is reset and the case is live again.

So a statute barred debt can be reactivated at any time if the debtor acknowledges or makes a payment no matter how small.

 

[Cantalia]

So basically you are saying you need a very clued in debtor to successfully use the statute. I think you overestimate the worry that people have about the bank when they have nothing, when you have nothing you have more immediate concerns

 

[Bronte]

Cantalia, that's true but it could come back to bite you. If you were successful in business, inherited a large amount or a property of yours went up massively in value. You can be sure the banks would come knocking in those scenarios. The beauty of bankruptcy is that it puts an end date to the whole sorry mess.

 

[brenbrady]

What happens in a case where a creditor takes out a judgement, wouldn't the statute of limitations be pointless in that scenario as the creditors will have 12 years to enforce the order?

 

[Time]

The statute would not apply in the case where there is a judgement.

They would have 12 years from the date of judgement to enforce.

 

[Bronte]

Now that's ridiculous. Banks are going to get as much out of you as they legally can and then some. Sometimes that might appear to be pragmatism, but appearances can be deceptive, especially when it comes to banks.

 

[Gerry Canning]

Cantilia; A very clued in person could use the Statute , but long before that Mr Bank would have sold/moved on Debt to 3rd Party eg Debt collectors and they are excellent at getting some acknowledgment of the debt ; in short debt stays live.

 

[Time]

Well said there Gerry.