Statute Barred debt - HFO court action

fermi

elliott ness

I notice you have had some useful replies on other forums.

In particular from Paul who is a legal bod.

He knows what he is talking about and has helped defend many VERY high profile cases.

Paul. wrote:

with respect to the solicitors, that is, !!!!!!!!,

The cause of action arises from the breach of contract, it is when the Claimant could sue that the limitation starts running from not when they serve the default notice. If it were from the default notice then no one would serve one thus protecting limitation.

I would need to know what the particulars of the claim were to be honest, but it does seem that the limitation has expired

what is the date on the claim form too??? it should be in the top right corner

also was this claim issued in the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre?

Clarified by

Ok, attached is a case that assists with limitation debates that can arise.

Many DCAs will argue that limitation accrues from the time when the "default notice" is issued. It does not. Simple as that.

Limitation clock starts ticking from when the payment is due and not paid not when they send a default notice.

We see often that CRA entries will date 5 or 6 months ahead of when the payment was missed.

People need to be sure that they arent being hoodwinked and that the DCA is extending limitation so they can sue when they are not allowed to.

And

Paul. wrote:

well i happen to be in contact with the OFT on behalf of another client and i would be very interested in this as it is clearly a misleading practice

I suggest you reply to him there, as he can no doubt help.

NeverAgain_2

...it is when the Claimant could sue that the limitation starts running from not when they serve the default notice...

My understanding is the claimant cannot sue until a default notice has been served.

Thus they will say: "The first date we can sue is when the notice is served, so the clock cannot start until we have served the notice."

fermi

Nice try :rotfl:, but wrong, as that was clarified when queried.

Paul wrote:

Ok, attached is a case that assists with limitation debates that can arise.

Many DCAs will argue that limitation accrues from the time when the "default notice" is issued. It does not. Simple as that.

Limitation clock starts ticking from when the payment is due and not paid not when they send a default notice.

We see often that CRA entries will date 5 or 6 months ahead of when the payment was missed.

People need to be sure that they arent being hoodwinked and that the DCA is extending limitation so they can sue when they are not allowed to.

i.e. cause of action is the first missed contractual payment.

DVardysShadow

NeverAgain wrote: »

...Twaddle. You are allowed to fairly defend your case...

Yes, you are allowed to fairly defend your case, but attacking the credibility of the other side will not be seen in that light.

I see the post suggesting the OP simply pays what he owes has been deleted, but that point may come into it.

If the judge sees the legal argument as cut and dried, he will rule that way, whatever that way is.

But if he sees the matter as finely balanced, at the back of his mind will be the thought: "The money was borrowed, has not been paid back, so is still owed."

I think the material fermi raises about the credibility of the claimants and their proximity to getting their licenses revoked is not for one moment suggested as part of a defence in court. It is however a fair indication of the lack of quality of the other side and also possibly a warning that they may come out with some fairly bizarre stuff.

NeverAgain wrote: »

...it is when the Claimant could sue that the limitation starts running from not when they serve the default notice...

My understanding is the claimant cannot sue until a default notice has been served.

Thus they will say: "The first date we can sue is when the notice is served, so the clock cannot start until we have served the notice."

No, Swansea got this wrong originally and on appeal.

to reiterate, the 6 years starts from when the claimant's rights are breached. Serving a default notice is merely an essential milestone in the process of enforcing rights.

elliott_ness

I am so confused!!!!! Have no idea what my defence shld be?????