It is interesting though that a number of people posting on this board (eg see earlier post, about 7 down, 'Unusual repossession case') have been told to expect contact from their lender within a specific time frame, and when that contact never came they made the reasonable assumption that the alleged debt was not going to be an issue (or written off), and made decisions based on that consequent understanding - like to start a family, say. (An expensive business!) Assuming that the ex borrower was all that time at an address known to the lender (and which can be proven to be the case), could estoppel be relevant?(posted 8552 days ago)I suspect that many lenders gave notice to ex borrowers that they would be contacted after X amount of time, and because of either negligence or a cynical policy decision to wait a few more years till the hapless repossessee might have dug him/herself out of the gutter, the lender delayed that promised contact. Why should the lender benefit from such a delay?