I have been chased by Curtis for 4 years for an indemnity policy through RSA.I recieved a petition for bancruptcy without recieving the SD curtis signed an affrdavid stating I recieved SD my wife and I signed to say we did not.

We emplyed a barrister and was adviced that it was statue barred Today curtis withdrew petion and agreed to all our terms . 1/ Statue barred 2/ Sd not recieved 3/ debt is no longer recoverable 4/ will pay all costs in relation to barrister solicitors and any court fees. 5/ to withdraw from court

Debt was for a repo in 1992

My advice to anyone in this situation is to keep fighting And at anytime DO NOT AKNOWLEDGE DEBT

A 100% Victory over these debt collectors

-- ROBIN HOLLAND (robinholland@ntlworld.com), February 08, 2005

Answers

Congratulations!!!

This will cheer a lot up people up who are still fighting.

It can be done.

It's a great feeling knowing that you can move on with your life...hope you had a few drinks to celebrate!!

All the best for a happy and repo free future!!

Moira

-- Moira (Anderston828@aol.com), February 08, 2005.

It is a great feeling and a result for everyone still fighting. A bottle of champagne hase been drunk .

Can i say if you are still fighting employ a barrister thy are worth there expensive fees.

-- Robin (robinholland@ntlworld.com), February 08, 2005.

Excellent news, well done. I have stressed many times on this site that people must not acknowledge the debt but dispute it and deny liability in all correspondence, and also not to make any part payments as this too acknowledges a debt. Of course, these people rely on peoples ignorance of the law. It's unfortunate that many people can't afford the services of a barrister.

Best wishes for the future,

Mark

-- M Amos (idgroms1@yahoo.co.uk), February 10, 2005.

That's really good news!!

Could someone possibly please give me some hope?

I am in the postion of Halifax-MIG-RSA-Curtis.

I was repo'd in Oct 1991 after defaulting in Dec 1990. Curtis contacted me in Oct 2004 to claim a shortfall, which I will not acknowledge! They say that because the house was only sold in May 2003, and subsequently the MIG paid out, that the claim by RSA is not Time Statute Barred?

Are they correct in claiming that the 12 years begins again from the date the MIG paid out in 1993?

Cheers

Dave

-- Dave (dave-jasper@supanet.com), March 03, 2005.

The time starts from the third default on the mortgage not from when the house was sold or mig paid out My case was RSA and Curtis this info was given by my barrister and has been stated on here many times they cannot win and they will have to pay costs

Have hope

-- ROB (robinholland@ntlworld.com), March 03, 2005.

Agreed - I had a similar thing with another lender. Check though - whilst most mortgage agreements state that the default occurs after the third consecutive missed payment, they're not all the same. Time to read the small print.

I reckon your right, though, so I wish you every success and all the very best of luck.

Brian.

-- Brian Mitchell (mitchell.brian@ntlworld.com), March 03, 2005.