| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 44565 | 2004-04-23 03:52:00 | Is payment acceptance of invoice charge .... | Woof (2402) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 231495 | 2004-04-24 12:25:00 | > > God forbid that Truck drivers, Pilots, Engineers > etc, > > ad nuseam "pactise" and charge people while doing > so. > > Well, Elephant I hold a "Practising Licence", and I > am an Engineer (among various other things as well), > and I charge people for my services. So be very > afraid ... Oh I am..... :-) Just had to comment about the language though. Maybe you are a Civil Engineer? Then we could have a Civil War. In my experience wars are anything but civil. Here I go again??? I will try to start my own thread on this one. |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 231496 | 2004-04-24 12:28:00 | Basically after the 6 years they have no "legal" redress to chase the claim. They can still persue you for the money however they cannot take you to court over the debt. I am having a similair arguement with Telecom at the moment with regards to a phone bill from 94. As far as myself and my flatmates at the time are concerned we paid the bill and nothing more was heard till 6 months ago when I started getting nasty letters and calls. When I checked with the company sending the letters'....Dun&Bradstreet who are associated with Baycorp they informed me that due to the age of the debt they could not take me to court with regards to the debt however Telecom can refuse me service and can still attempt to "coerce" me into paying. The people at D&B were actually very helpful and have removed the debt from their database as Telecom had failed to notify them of the age of the debt but please note the 6 years is from the time of the last financial transaction made by YOu against the account. As a sidenote the rather nasty lady from Telecom Credit stated that they would be persuing me in regards to this and refusing me any of their services. She got quite upset when I pointed out I had the telephone and internet through them in every house I have since lived in and currently is one of their "broadband" users,what really upset her was the fact that the phone and internet is in my partners name and they have no way fo finding out which it is to cut the services. I only ever talked to her on my Vodaphone. I don't see how they can have a debt "materialise" 10 years later, I provided a written letter from myself and my flatmate at the time stating that we both believed we had payed and they still want me to pay again. I wish I still had the reciepts but I only hold onto them for 3 years not 10. |
dipstick01 (445) | ||
| 231497 | 2004-04-24 13:04:00 | Utility companies seldom -if ever- take you to court over a utility debt, as the normal debt level is well below the threshhold of economic recovery. The Limitations Act 1950 (from memory) says action can't be taken after the expiration of 6 years : * from the date on which the arrears became due OR * from the date of when last payment was made of recovery of arrears OR * from the date an acknowledgement of the debt was last made by the debtor. It does not say that a debt collector cannot try to recover the debt however, in order that your credit record with the Utility becomes clean again. He is then selling you a commercial service, but you don't have to buy it. The way a Utility protects its bad debt costs is to refuse any service to anyone on its "bad credit" list as mentioned above, and as far as I am aware that has no limitation. Its a commercial issue in most cases, and can have nasty consequences when you least expect them. In the old days Utilities could likely even exchange credit defaulters names, but thats probably "not done" now. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 231498 | 2004-04-24 13:09:00 | > > Avoiding or evading payment for the statutory period > does not constitute a defence against the existence > of the debt in the view of the Utility. > If it did, you could buy a new car on credit, then go > into hiding with the car for 6 years, and emerge with > a free car, if you follow the logic. That would be very naughty. But theoretically possible. In fact more than just theory. Imagine a person borrowing $1000 as a personal loan from a bank. They buy a camera, then rush off to Oz to visit a sick relative. Time goes by, the loan is forgotten, 6 years pass and they still have the camera. Recovery of the loan cannot be sued for. But the bank will have entered judgement in the meantime in NZ so Baycorp will have a record and this persons credit record will be bad. The other issue is fraud. In GFs example it sounds like a crime is committed although you'll be pleased to know there are time limitations on criminal prosecutions too. So it could work provided our putative car buyer wants to spend 6 years living and walking on the West Coast. Quasi - monopoly suppliers such as Telecom can ignore the 6 year rule and blacklist service to known debtors. Electricity companies certainly do this. I sympathise Dipstick. You illustrate the other side of the issue - too much time has passed for you to be able to prove you are actually in the right. Evidence has disappeared. That is really the rationale for the Statute of Limitations. You get 6 years to sue for the debt or whatever. After that it is presumed a defendant will have lost evidence needed to answer the claim. Sometimes it will be unfair but we have to have rules. And Elephant - we've always known GF was a civil fellow :D |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 231499 | 2004-04-25 21:35:00 | Thank you Winston001 Yes, in this case the payments were induced by (our) mistake and there for I shall be continuing (unrelenting) to pursue full refund due. Thanks everyone for your other useful comments too. |
Woof (2402) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||