Builder Charged Me 3 Years Later

scd3scd4

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Is a company pursuing a lawful debt harassment and a matter for the police?

At some point you say that's enough. Now take me to court.


Do you think you can ring up as many times as you like, when you like and for as long as you like?


Once I told him no once. The phone would go down as soon as I knew it was him on future calls.

scd3scd4

OP.


My view is you tell him firmly you paid in cash. You have no intention to pay again 3 years later. He is welcome to take you to court. Any more phone calls will just be blocked or the phone put down as soon as you realise it is him or anyone representing him.


If he issues a CC then come back.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

I don’t agree, I think the judge will definitely take it consideration. I doubt it will go that far anyway but, you can’t tell.

A judge won't be able to take it into consideration when the law expressly sets out a period of 6 years.

davidmcn

The relevance of the six year period is only that there isn't an absolute defence until that point that the debt has expired. It doesn't mean that courts can't take into account the time line when assessing the credibility of the parties.

unholyangel

davidmcn wrote: »

The relevance of the six year period is only that there isn't an absolute defence until that point that the debt has expired. It doesn't mean that courts can't take into account the time line when assessing the credibility of the parties.

The relevance is that they wanted to balance an individuals right to enforce a claim with the protection against parties having claims held over their heads forever. They decided that cut off point was 6 years in these cases (at least in england & wales).

Even businesses who are very good at reconciling can take over a year to spot a discrepancy.

The 6 years isn't an absolute defence, in certain situations the judge can (and may) permit an extension.

stragglebod

unholyangel wrote: »

A judge won't be able to take it into consideration when the law expressly sets out a period of 6 years.

That's quite a bold claim.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

A judge won't be able to take it into consideration when the law expressly sets out a period of 6 years.

There would be no point in a court case then. The judge would have to decide if the op paid somehow.

waamo

Zandoni wrote: »

There would be no point in a court case then. The judge would have to decide if the op paid somehow.

Of course there would be a need. The claimant states they haven't paid the op claims they have. Evidence such as who paid for the permit may be useful, if it was the claimant it may be evidence of no payment. If it was the op it makes it likely the op paid. If the balance sheet shows a payment missing it might be evidence.

Waiting 3 years can be easily explained by cba bringing a claim or "because we can" or we are allowed to or even "dunno". They are allowed 6 years so why 3 is an issue I don't know. If they choose to wait that's their choice. They can wait if they want to. Their choice.

unholyangel

stragglebod wrote: »

That's quite a bold claim.

Not in the circumstances.

You tell me, where in the limitation act it permits discretion to prescribe a shorter period than allowed for in the act for the circumstances described?

There are rules on when discretion can be applied and in what way, and that way in those circumstances is not one of them.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Not in the circumstances.

You tell me, where in the limitation act it permits discretion to prescribe a shorter period than allowed for in the act for the circumstances described?

There are rules on when discretion can be applied and in what way, and that way in those circumstances is not one of them.

Why wouldn’t a judge ask why they waited so long to ask for payment. The answer because I have 6 years would make no sense, they’d go out of business if they don’t collect what’s due straight away. Most companies want payment very early in the process.