Hi again(posted 7939 days ago)The thing with a money judgment is that once a creditor has got one (unless it can be set aside (e.g. a default judgment where you never received the claim form)) LA '80 doesn't apply at all where the creditor is seeking to enforce the judgment. Its all down to the rules of court.
LA '80 applies to getting a judgment rather than enforcing an existing one (there's a bit more on the thread above).
If a judgment creditor is trying to use the bailiff or sheriff after more than 6 years inactivity, the court will not automatically give leave.
If the creditor had known where you lived for a number of years but still done nothing, the court might well refuse leave.
But, on the other hand, if the creditor wasn't able to do anything because you were abroad, the court would probably give leave.
If the lender has not obtained a money judgment (I have never heard of this with a voluntary repossession other than when they eventually sue for the shortfall), then yes, if they do not issue proceedings within the limitation period, the debt is statute barred - subject to acknowledgment and part payment.
One interesting issue relating to money judgments - I have an article written by a district judge in a legal journal that says that if a lender obtains a money judgment along with a suspended possession order it can charge no further interest. He says that lenders who obtain money judgments have "shot themselves in the foot". (have only got it on paper unfortunately).
This is probably a bit of a radical view but might warrant further investigation.
I have posted some thoughts on the position of MIGS on the thread above - my fear is that subrogation will prevail. I like the argument that the contract of insurance is a simple conyract - it certainly isn't a specialty. I haven't heard any decent legal argument and don't know if it is at issue in CA.
Take care and keep on keeping on
Guy