Yet more advice: settling a debt (English legal advice)

[Provost Harrison]

OK, 17 months ago the university I was carrying out my PhD with made a 'faux pas' to use a euphemism. Now I used to receive a quarterly maintenance grant of £1872.50 for my studentship. However in late September 2001, they decided to pay me not once, not twice but three times Hence I actually received that quarter an extra £3745. As they were completely clueless, I just moved it into a savings account. However, financial problems struck and I had to use some of this money to the tune of £1345, leaving £2400.

Now in February the following year they demanded the money back. I said they could have £2400 of it immediately, but the rest, they were simply going to have to wait for. But as of yet, despite a small amount of correspondence, there has been no move to retrieve on their behalf nor pay on my behalf as I have not yet gained permanent employment.

I have offered them terms of repayment (60 monthly at £22.42 or so a month), but they were none too pleased by this and are threatening me with legal action. How do I stand, legally speaking? Do they have a leg to stand on as it was their error? (they threatened me with the effect on my credit rating, although I pointed out to them I have not undertaken a credit agreement with them). I am willing to pay it back, but on my terms.

Advice? I know Laz may know a thing or two about this.

[Dauphin]

Any debts are valid and reclaimable for 6 years after last contact, including erroneous payments and loans.

[Flubber]

Unless you Brits have some statute that governs this, the money was paid to you under the aptly named legal doctrine of "mistake". I understand here that you knew right away that you were not entitled to this money so generally the law will not allow you to keep the money . Now, if you had informed them immediately of what seemed to be an error and someone in officialdom told you that you were entitled to the money, you would be in a different position possibly. I represented a guy you got government benefits he thought he was not entitled to (but it was a bit more difficult to tell). he phoned officialdom twice and spoke to entry level and then supervisor level people who all told him to keep the money. Two YEARS later they came looking for the money and threatened legal action. WE told them to get lost citing their confirmations (he had kept records of all the phone converstaions). Its now 5 years later and we have not heard another word.

Note that if you thought all along that you were entitled to the money , they would have a heck of a time getting it back.

Now as to your current predicament, there is the legal and the practical. The legal is that you present the facts as you knowing immediately that the money was not yours yet you spent some due to life circumstances. They would likely be successful in an action to recover the money. But this gets into the practical-- unless your court and judgement system works very differently, there is absolutely no benefit to them to sue someone in this circumsatnce where you are ready to pay them back . . . a judgenment gets them the right to garnishee wages, bank acounts etc or seize assets. I doubt you have anything to seize ( most household goods are exempt in most jurisdictions) and you don't have any money so the best they will get is installments (from your income). since thats what you are offering, all legal action does is run up costs. I suspect it is a bluff to try to shake you up. They are probably secretly delighted to get 2400 back fairly quickly. You would be amazed at how many people fold at the first mention of legal action.

[JohnT]

"You would be amazed at how many people fold at the first mention of legal action."

Hopefully, like my father when I hit him with a lawsuit of $5,000,000 for breach of contract.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by JohnT
"You would be amazed at how many people fold at the first mention of legal action."

Hopefully, like my father when I hit him with a lawsuit of $5,000,000 for breach of contract.

Unfortunately the " caving-in" phenomenon seems to occurr more frequently in people not experienced in business. To anyone who has been in business for a while, the threat of suing or being sued is just one more negotiating/business tactic. As a lawyer, and knowing how slow the process can be, I am amazed when anyone is that worried over the mere fact that they might be sued.

The other big one that gets most individuals is that it will " hurt your credit rating". I got that myself from a company once when I disputed a charge and they called looking for payment. I laughed at them. I think these debt collection folks are used to most people being cowed by their little threats.


But good luck with that lawsuit

[FrustratedPoet]

I was about to mock you for posting a "I've bought a new car!" thread immediately followed by a "Help, I've got big debts!" thread, but then I realised there isn't anything to mock here.

[Provost Harrison]

No, the car loan doesn't affect my finances as they have stood for years. I am just taking out a loan to the same value of the original...as I have already paid off most of the original loan I have a lot of money left after paying off the original loan, enough for a decent car with a trade in. With the reliability of my present car, I can't really afford to do anything other, especially when the monthly loan payments will be exactly the same (in fact, marginally cheaper due to the fall in interest rates )

This debt is another issue. Yeah, I acknowledge their claim to the debt, and have never done anything other. My issue is with the repayment. I do not have the funds to make a payment to that figure. But I have offered them terms of repayment and they were not satisfied. I am not in the slightest concerned by the concept of legal action as I know in my position my offer is more than generous. But the simple fact is, with Hull's poor public transport, I need a car for commuting and jobseeking.

[Flubber]

If your car is collateral for a loan, it is likely impractical for that to be seized in any event--

I think I would do what you are doing-- essentially make it clear that you REALLY don't have the money and leave it at that-- A lawsuit seems to serve no purpose for them

[Provost Harrison]

That is exactly what I thought. I am not concerned and I am not going to panic, after all, they cannot take what I don't have...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on, PH. They are within their rights to request immediate repayment and take action for recovery through the County Courts.

If you can pay it, do so ASAP, or you'll get a County Court Judgment against you which will royally screw up your ability to get future credit facilities.

[Provost Harrison]

Seriously, even though I have made an offer of repayment over a period of time, and that the error was theirs?

[Lancer]

Tell them you have three distinct personalities and each of you got the correct payment. Or, that you have multiple personalities and you are passing the hat among yourself as none of you has admitting taking their money, and you're not about to check everyones pockets.

Tell them it's in the mail, that you posted it from Somaliland, in cash, during the height of the revolution. That you had explained to the man in the post office that your parcel was full of CASH, and you were concerned for its safe delivery. He said "consider it delivered". You believed him because he seemed gay, and so was the personality that gave him the package.

They should now seek their money from the gay guy in the Somali postal system.

This works every time.

Btw PH, your town of Hull was on TV here in Oregon the other day. Seems that because of a riot in the soccer stadium the place now has cameras that can tell everyone's identity in the stadium. It's enough of a marval to make it to some techy sort of program.

So, Hull is famous now.

[Provost Harrison]

LOL, Hull was on the news in Oregon? Well I never

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Seriously, even though I have made an offer of repayment over a period of time, and that the error was theirs?

To remain within the law you should have informed them as soon as you found out about the extra money. By not doing so you have actually committed theft as defined by the "unjust enrichment" sections of the Theft Act.

[JohnT]

Are you willing to sell your great idea for 1,300 pounds, PH?