A quick trip to Beagleland can be quite entertaining, sometimes you just have to laugh!
Here, a new poster is asking about a claim, and they do receive a response, only trouble is, it’s not in English! It’s in Latin: Cabot County Court Statute Barred Debt. A few LB members enjoy using this dead language in their signatures, probably because they think it makes them look scholarly, literate and well educated. Fair enough, however, when someone asks a question, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to answer it in the language most commonly used in this country?
Rather than a translation, the OP gets a cryptic clue: a link to Google where, at first glance, the meaning is not that clear. This is exactly what comes up when you go to that link, hardly obvious, is it? It’s all in the context of the Law of Torts and you can see negligence and personal injury mentioned on the page. The OP has received a money claim for a statute barred debt. They must have been wondering how any of that would apply to his claim.
The OP then asks for an explanation and mistypes one word, yet it’s still quite obvious that they are referring to “definition”, especially when you see it in context. Still his question is answered with an open question.
After all this, they are told they are not experts, and that the court cannot give you a CCJ for a SBd debt. Actually, they can! The court doesn’t know whether the debt is SBd or not, SBd is a procedural defence. That means you have to write down on your defence form that the debt is SBd.
When the OP asks how he would defend, they referred to a green box at the top of the thread and told to “adapt to suit”. Yet another cryptic clue! For a start, there aren’t any green boxes, just green text links. There is one to an example defence, but it’s not the statute barred defence. When he asks for another clue, this time he is met with “cccc”, whatever that means. The answers refer only to the proof of posting but nothing to do with his original question regarding what he was looking for in the non-existent green boxes at the top.
This goes on for a while, then, 25 posts later, Sir Nemesis makes a triumphant entrance and quickly pastes up his Words of Wisdom. Even though this issue has been debated to exhaustion, he is STILL going on about the default dates on credit files. Cabot & Co. can say whatever they want, DEFAULT DATES ON CREDIT FILES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LIMITATION. Nothing whatsoever. The Limitation Act 1980 refers to the cause of action, since when is reporting to the CRAs the cause of any action? The cause of action would be missing a payment, not making an entry on the credit database. Maybe if we have this in bold, red, all caps he will be able to read it and finally absorb it.
Fortunately another poster stepped in to suggest a full defence including reference to the CCA and assignment issues as a fallback plan in case the account turns out not to be statute barred after all. Not one to relinquish attention, Sir Nemesis bangs on about underhand tricks by Cabot denying receipt of a CCA request. Isn’t that the reason whey they are sent recorded delivery, so they can be tracked on the Royal Mail site?