6yr 6 month parking ticket

fermi

They have been busy.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?54929-Debt-enforcement-and-Action-Ltd-dispute

bazster

fermi wrote: »

If that letter is representative, then it's simply draft particulars of claim attached. Not anything pretending to be a court document.

Underhand and intimidating, but not fake.

But possibly misleading and aggressive, contrary to UTR 2008.

Thanks for the elaboration on statute-barred debts BTW.

bazster

Dee140157 wrote: »

Someone remind me what the change is that is coming. I know it's in a thread here somewhere.

There's a new law coming in which basically gives punters like you and me the right to sue traders who act in a misleading and/or aggressive manner as per UTR 2008, and provides for various remedies including damages for inconvenience or distress.

It's not quite a catch-all to sue PPC's because before you can sue it seems to be necessary that you've either paid the trader or entered into a contract as a result of being bullied or misled. But it can't hurt to point out to the likes of the Co-Op that if they don't take their own action against CEL they are playing with fire.

fermi

Stroma wrote: »

You can't re-ignite a debt once its statute barred,

Correct.

The LA1980 is very clear on that point where it says in s29(7).

a current period of limitation may be repeatedly extended under this section by further acknowledgments or payments, but a right of action, once barred by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent acknowledgment or payment.

In other words, once statute barred it stays that way. permanently. No matter what you do after that.

Stroma

Very helpful fermi, knew you were the right person to ask as I've followed your advice a few times, thanks very much for popping over

Coupon-mad

Thanks fermi - I have copied what you've said, into the similar pepipoo thread from someone who has posted about a 2007 PCN (liability never admitted).

fermi

One more on legalbeagles.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?54929-Debt-enforcement-and-Action-Ltd-dispute

If me I would be torn between replying or not, but it is close enough to a valid LBC that I think I would feel the need to in order to show the court later that I tried to resolve the matter before it got to them as is expected.

Others say ignore, and with these scummy recovery companies that is an understandable stance that I also agree with in some respects, as with some contact just goads them on.

Difficult as always.

Stroma

Yes they are trying it on, it's a difficult one to handle as if this was a company with any kind ethics you'd write to them and say this is statute barred. But this is CEL and they have no ethics at all and it may encourage them.

Do I have it right that they can write about recovering statute barred so called debts, but they cannot take legal action on them?

fermi

They can write. They can ask.

If this was an FCA regulated company/debt (consumer credit etc), then if the alleged debtor had heard nothing for over 6 years then FCA rules say they should not start chasing. Or if you tell then to bog off as it is statute barred they are obliged to get lost and stop.

The above confuses things on forums like this, as most fall under FCA regulated collectors so the above applies.

In this case CEL don't have to pay one jot of attention to the FCA so they can do as they please within the law.

As for taking legal action, they can of take court action if they wish by issuing a claim.

Anyone can issue a claim for anything. Whether it can succeed if defended is another matter.

Stroma

Thanks, so if they do issue a claim I guess the first thing would be trying to get it struck out as it's statute barred. And to make complaints to ICO as this not reasonable use of data after so many years of nothing.