Excel/bw chasing my wifes carer

pappa_golf

hoohoo wrote: »

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/time-limits-for-recovering-debts/statute-barred-debt.aspx?gclid=CM-G4MaIsdQCFVU_GwodixcOEA

The cause of action (when the limitation period starts running) for simple contract debts, is usually when your agreement says the creditor is able to take court action because you have fallen behind with payments. This will usually be after one or two missed payments.

that is in the case of a signed credit agreement , not a speculative invoice

hoohoo

pappa_golf wrote: »

that is in the case of a signed credit agreement , not a speculative invoice

Would you risk it for the sake of a few more days?

And why would the cause of action date not be the date when the invoice (speculative or not) is due?

pappa_golf

back pre POFA2012 the "speculative" invoice was due on the date it was issued , there were no regulations that stated 7 , 14 , 28 days or whatever , there was no proper appeal system , in fact if you did appeal you would have had an automated denial within 20 seconds

it was only the incorporation of POFa 2012 and the starting of an ATA with a code of practice that enabled the 28 days to pay .


remember , pre POFa2012 and the introduction of the BPA ATA there was no such "legal" thing as a NTD or NTK , it was just an invoice ISSUED on site (on the date) followed up by begging letters later on

[Deleted User]

As a matter of principle, I would argue that limitation is based upon the parking event - the subsequent correspondence is irrelevant.

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. [s.5 Limitation Act 1980 - my emphasis]

The cause of action - the actual breach of the contract - whether an overstay or parking outside the bay is clearly the date of parking, not when you knew someone was chasing you for the money. Further, no signage I have seen specifies payment terms, which strictly speaking means that the fee sought would be due immediately. Thus, 6 years started to run from 9 June 2011 (the first day after the event).

So unless the Claimant has already issued Court proceedings they're outta there - HAPPY ANNIVERSARY !

If, however, papers have been lodged at Court (even so much as 24 hours ago), then they are within time. The duty is to start Court proceedings, i.e. MCOL nothing other than issued court issued proceedings will suffice to keep it in play. If that's been done (within reason) they've got as long as they need.

pappa_golf

why "Thus, 6 years started to run from 9 June 2011 (the first day after the event).

there was no legislation , no day after , no 28 days no nothing if the INVOICE for payment was issued on the 8th , then the clock started on the 8th

[Deleted User]

Correct - to a point. The day of the event is day zero. If, for example the ticket was issued at 14:00 hrs on 8/6/11 and you got a claim form issued at 10:00 hrs on 8/6/17 then technically you'd be in time. No such arguments with the analysis above.

Anyone 'on the ball' would naturally have this issued, at the latest, by 7/6/17 to avoid such argument.

mowkid

Following the optimistic suggestions posted on this forum I helped my carer lady to formulate a complaint to the SRA re the activities of bwlegal.
To be honest, I thought all along that it was probably a futile gesture because all so called proffesional bodies close ranks when anything makes waves. The SRA is probably a back side covering operation.
The attached is from them. They couldn't even get the name correct as My carer lady is neither Mrs or Bertolleti.

20 June 2017
Dear Mr Bertolotti,
Your report regarding BW Legal Services Limited
I am writing to you regarding the report you made about BW Legal Services Limited ('the firm'). Please accept our apologies for the delay in contacting you about this matter.
I write to inform you that this matter has now reached a conclusion.
You were concerned about the firm's practices in relation to the recovery of car parking charges.
We received a number of reports in addition to yours about the way the firm were dealing with the recovery of debts. As such, we focussed our investigation on whether the firm were recovering debts that were legitimately owed, and whether the firm’s practices were potentially taking unfair advantage of those who had allegedly parked in breach of conditions.
We have spoken to the firm on a number of occasions about their practices to fully understand how they operate this area of their business. We have also requested various documents, including copies of letters sent by the firm and the car parking company regarding the recovery of car parking charges.
We have decided to take no disciplinary or regulatory action. We are satisfied that the firm are acting on their client’s (car parking company) instructions and they are instructed on legitimate claims where the car parking firms have been unsuccessful in recovering their parking charges after a number of attempts.
When a case is subject to investigation, we will, if appropriate, seek to engage constructively with the firm to achieve compliance. In instances where there is an open, co-operative and constructive approach, we may decide to take no formal action.
Our engagement has resulted in the firm asking their client to add further information to their letters to make details such as legal fees more transparent to the public.
We are satisfied the firm are committed to working within the requirements of our Code of Conduct. Your reports, and details of our investigation work will be retained on our records, and can be revisited should we have cause to do so.
We would like to take the opportunity to thank you for raising your concerns with us and hope that this letter offers an explanation for the decision we have made.
Yours sincerely,
Ajmer Nahal
Regulatory Supervisor
Solicitors Regulation Authority
Tel: 0121 329 6619  ajmer.nahal@sra.org.uk

beamerguy

mowkid

The SRA have proved time after time that they actually run "an old boys club"

They cannot be trusted as they don't follow their own principals.

The SRA should take note of what happens in court and actually
understand why BWLegal are zapped in court which is a result
of the rubbish they write

Umkomaas

A copy and paste response, with possibly some minor amendments, but they've obviously failed to amend the salutation.

Caught them out!

mowkid

It just goes to prove the old American saying "you can't beat City Hall"
I tried hard as I know others did to get bw sorted out but good. I also tried to get Smart Parking on the spot for not getting planning permission at Melton Mowbray.
I've got to concede failure on both scores as the Sir Humphries of this world always have the final say.