bwlegal - Limitation Act 1980 Query

beamerguy

D_P_Dance said:

The SRA are similar to the BPA 

Yes, but the SRA do strike off a lot of dodgy solicitors, especially where dishonesty is involved. 

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/recent-decisions/

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/sdt-and-sra-interventions

YES, they are maybe still pondering the likes of BWL

Curlyben

Where the BPA is merely a self-serving members club, the SRA do actually have official regulatory powers.

beamerguy

Curlyben said:

Where the BPA is merely a self-serving members club, the SRA do actually have official regulatory powers.

Interesting though what WILL the SRA DO.  Previous complaints to the SRA REGARDING ABUSE OF PROCESS were dismissed as BWL said they were instructed by their client

With this, even if they were instructed by their client, BWL failed their client by not understanding that it was barred ?  If they did understand then it was a try on and do the SRA principals operate on ignorance and/or try on's  

Beano456

It's been some years since I swatted up on SB, things might have changed so I could be wrong but my understanding of the limitation act is that it only comes into play when you raise it. Up until the point you inform the creditor that you won't be paying and inform them it's SB they can still pursue and issue a court claim (if it's not raised as a defence it's not for the courts to do the defendants job for them).  If you've informed the creditor it's SB then even if they're allowed to ask (beg) for payment, they can't use the threat of court action or ccj and continuing to ask for payment once told it's sb could amount to harassment.

Curlyben

Beano456 said:

It's been some years since I swatted up on SB, things might have changed so I could be wrong but my understanding of the limitation act is that it only comes into play when you raise it. Up until the point you inform the creditor that you won't be paying and inform them it's SB they can still pursue and issue a court claim (if it's not raised as a defence it's not for the courts to do the defendants job for them).  If you've informed the creditor it's SB then even if they're allowed to ask (beg) for payment, they can't use the threat of court action or ccj and continuing to ask for payment once told it's sb could amount to harassment.

However, any legal firm worth their letter head, should be well versed and not take such action, even if acting on the clients instructions. We already know just how far debt chasers lawyers are willing to bend the law to get a result, allegedly...
Ignorantia juris non excusat.

beamerguy

Curlyben said:

Beano456 said:

It's been some years since I swatted up on SB, things might have changed so I could be wrong but my understanding of the limitation act is that it only comes into play when you raise it. Up until the point you inform the creditor that you won't be paying and inform them it's SB they can still pursue and issue a court claim (if it's not raised as a defence it's not for the courts to do the defendants job for them).  If you've informed the creditor it's SB then even if they're allowed to ask (beg) for payment, they can't use the threat of court action or ccj and continuing to ask for payment once told it's sb could amount to harassment.

However, any legal firm worth their letter head, should be well versed and not take such action, even if acting on the clients instructions. We already know just how far debt chasers lawyers are willing to bend the law to get a result, allegedly...
Ignorantia juris non excusat.

SO RIGHT ....... maybe if we ignore the word LEGAL until they prove they are worthy, we treat them with the contempt they deserve ........ personally, I have yet to see any thing worthy about them ....  it's a bit of "only fools and horses" so much effort for £100 plus of course their scam charge.  

Curlyben

The debt chaser firms are hoping for a payment once the claim hits the mat or a simple default judgement which they can enforce.
As to why they continue even after being met with serious resistance, well I guess even beating your head against a rock garners results in the end, even if it's a headache.
The legal enforcement of debt of all kinds needs a serious rethink and proper regulation.
Why should a DCA pay pennies on the pound for an account and then claim the entire balance from the debtor via whatever threats they see fit. While the OC receives tax relief for bad debt and massages their bottomline.
It's about time this practice was outlawed.

Snakes_Belly

"While the OC receives tax relief for bad debt and massages their bottom line."

In theory yes but I don't believe that their debtor figure quoted in their accounts is a true picture of what monies will eventually be paid to them. It should technically be monies that are due for payment within one year but there must be a lot of debt that has been outstanding for years.

These old claims I don't believe have been written off. They are like the subprime that was held in the balance sheet of some the banks. It can't be that long before they start tumbling like a pack of cards.

Castle

Snakes_Belly said:

"While the OC receives tax relief for bad debt and massages their bottom line."
In theory yes but I don't believe that their debtor figure quoted in their accounts is a true picture of what monies will eventually be paid to them. It should technically be monies that are due for payment within one year but there must be a lot of debt that has been outstanding for years.

These old claims I don't believe have been written off. They are like the subprime that was held in the balance sheet of some the banks. It can't be that long before they start tumbling like a pack of cards.

Parking Eye actually understate their accounts, as demonstrated by their Accounts for the year ended 31st December 2019:-
Revenue £45.101m
Debtors   £  4.912m
Number of KADOE requests for 2019:-2,042,408

Parking Eye's total costs for 2019 came to £32.296m (which works out at £15.81 per KADOE request).

Jenni_D

Curlyben said:
We already know just how far debt chasers lawyers are willing to bend the law to get a result, allegedly...

Surely you mean flex? That's the de riguer term when COVID rules are mentioned.