bwlegal - Limitation Act 1980 Query

beamerguy

Curlyben said:

ParkingMadd said:

Coupon-mad said:

Can you show us a photo of the letter?  Wondering if it threatens legal action.

Of course! Apologies for the crudeness of the picture, I'm on my phone with no access to a scanner at the moment.
hxxps://imgur.com/a/EG6Kq0J
(change the hxxps to https and it should work, hopefully...)

Well that changes things slightly.
I'd still wait, but after Xmas will do as you have till 15 Jan to pay up.
Just hammers the nails home with a response letter dated 2021
2021 - 2014 = 7 leaves little to be argued...
(yeah I know it's only 6 and a bit but there you go)

100% Curlyben,  

Snakes_Belly

It sounds as if the gravy train is coming off the rails for this PPC.  Never seen so many claims appear on here for PPS, most of them very trivial. 

Rather than try to adapt their businesses to cope with the financial effect of the pandemic, as many businesses have had to do to survive.  The PPC's are grubbing around chasing meritless old claims that are past their sell by date.

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly said:

It sounds as if the gravy train is coming off the rails for this PPC.  Never seen so many claims appear on here for PPS, most of them very trivial. 

Rather than try to adapt their businesses to cope with the financial effect of the pandemic, as many businesses have had to do to survive.  The PPC's are grubbing around chasing meritless old claims that are past their sell by date.

And the hang on brigade, the robo-claim boys .... all part of the lower spectrum of life ?

You know, somebody actually complimented me on my driving today. They left a little note on the windscreen. It said, 'Parking Fine.

Le_Kirk

The oldies are the best (Many thanks to Tim Vine for that one-liner!)

bargepole

I had a client recently who received a claim form relating to an alleged debt from 2013 (not to do with parking).

The Defence included the following paragraphs:

The Defendant’s position, as previously notified to the Claimant, is that the previous admissions of this debt occurred more than six years ago, and as at the date of issue of the present claim, any such alleged debt based upon simple contract may not be recovered by legal means, pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.

In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant has no Cause of Action in this matter, and that by attempting to recover monies from a contractual agreement in which the last payment made by the Defendant was in February 2013, the issue of a Claim on 18 December 2019 was an abuse of process. The Court is invited to take the view that this claim is speculative and vexatious, and may wish to strike out the claim ab initio, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

When the case was transferred to the local County Court, the Judge ordered a Preliminary Hearing, to determine whether the debt was statute barred. The Claimant was unable to produce any document dated later than Feb 2013, and consequently the claim was struck out.

Coupon-mad

When the case was transferred to the local County Court, the Judge ordered a Preliminary Hearing, to determine whether the debt was statute barred. The Claimant was unable to produce any document dated later than Feb 2013, and consequently the claim was struck out.

But it should be said, for the benefit of the OP, a parking charge does not have its 6year clock re-set every time they send a letter.  Unlike, say, consumer credit agreements (Mail order, hire purchase etc.) which do operate that way.

Just trying to pre-empt the usual question.

Uptown_Boy

What if the recipient (alleged debtor) responds to any of those letters - even to simply deny that the debt exists? Does that engagement change things at all?

Coupon-mad

See above...no.

Uptown_Boy

Coupon-mad said:

See above...no.

Sorry but your statement doesn't answer the question (I had read your reply before posting - indeed it was why I posted) ... I can equally state that it does reset the clock. Neither of us have proven why we're correct.

I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, but if you're so sure you're right - why?

BrownTrout

Coupon-mad said:

When the case was transferred to the local County Court, the Judge ordered a Preliminary Hearing, to determine whether the debt was statute barred. The Claimant was unable to produce any document dated later than Feb 2013, and consequently the claim was struck out.

But it should be said, for the benefit of the OP, a parking charge does not have its 6year clock re-set every time they send a letter.  Unlike, say, consumer credit agreements (Mail order, hire purchase etc.) which do operate that way.

Just trying to pre-empt the usual question.

the old style student loans could be come statute barred as well., years ago i was being chased by the Student Loans company and turned round to them said bad luck its now SB and they confirmed it was written off, students no longer have that luxury with this new style (the old ones they couldn't touch your salary)