DCB Legal Letter Before Claim Highview Parking

Le_Kirk

Bluefeather said:

Inform them debt is statues barred as older than 6 years. They have to prove otherwise.

It made I larf but it is statute barred.

nosferatu1001

Given the appeal process is not regulatory there is no reason they cant immediately bring proceedings
Day of event for statute barred

Coupon-mad

Yep, date of event must be the cause of action start date, with private parking scenarios.

Egbert_Nobacon

It would appear that they have not noticed this is statute barred or are trying it on.

I would be inclined to reply to their LBC that I deny any legal liability and they must erase all data they hold.
I would also state this is harassment and if they proceed a £900 counterclaim will be issued.
At least this will stop them pulling out after issuing a court claim - if they are stupid enough to carry this on.

Coupon-mad

Yes, DCBLegal don't like that reply I wrote to a LBC that threatens a £900 counterclaim.  Easy enough to search & find on the forum, and has been used more than once.

Bluefeather

28 days to pay makes cause of action 28 days after the contract event. Absolutely. 

Appeal is in terms of contract for parking with the charge. Cause of action the date when a claim can be started is not the event date. So for PCN it's at least the time to pay period and likely after the discount period ends when cause of action clock starts on the the inflated amount. 

Discount period ends once the appeal process, in the contract for the charge, completes. This could be month+ after the event. 

Now. I have reasonably presented a situation the creditor could use in court to refute statute barred defence. If posters are insisting it's the date of PCN they need to refute that a debt with 28 days to pay has cause of action as invoice date plus the time to pay. 

Fruitcake

The limitations act is a complex thing. There are different time limits for different classes of action. For example, if the cause of action results in injury or death of a person, the time limit is different to that for defective goods, or for reclaiming land or rent.
If someone is injured, the time limit begins at the time of injury, but if they die from their injuries then the clock restarts at the time of death, and a new limit applies.

The limitation for a case resulting from fraud is six years from when the fraud was discovered, or would reasonably have been expected to be uncovered. In other words, it is not six years from the date of the event, but some time later.

If the claim is for tort of trespass, the limit is six years as per section 2 of the Act.

However, where the cause of action is founded on breach contract, as would be the case for a PCN, it would be covered by section 5 of the Act.

5 Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.

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.

If the scammers claim that a breach of contract occurred on a certain date, then for the purposes of the Limitations Act 1980, that is the date the clock starts ticking. Isn't it nice of the scammers to state on a PCN that a breach of contract has occurred on a specific date. It makes application and interpretation of the Limitations Act so much simpler.

nosferatu1001

As above
Their cause to bring action is the alleged breach of contract date
Not 28 days after

Bluefeather

Fruitcake said:

The limitations act is a complex thing. There are different time limits for different classes of action. For example, if the cause of action results in injury or death of a person, the time limit is different to that for defective goods, or for reclaiming land or rent.
If someone is injured, the time limit begins at the time of injury, but if they die from their injuries then the clock restarts at the time of death, and a new limit applies.

The limitation for a case resulting from fraud is six years from when the fraud was discovered, or would reasonably have been expected to be uncovered. In other words, it is not six years from the date of the event, but some time later.

If the claim is for tort of trespass, the limit is six years as per section 2 of the Act.

However, where the cause of action is founded on breach contract, as would be the case for a PCN, it would be covered by section 5 of the Act.

5 Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.

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.

If the scammers claim that a breach of contract occurred on a certain date, then for the purposes of the Limitations Act 1980, that is the date the clock starts ticking. Isn't it nice of the scammers to state on a PCN that a breach of contract has occurred on a specific date. It makes application and interpretation of the Limitations Act so much simpler.

simply repeating that clock starts at cause of action . You are not proving that 28 days to pay does not move the cause of action to then. Why because no debt until terms of payment breached.
It's debt recovery. Not a simple contract singularly. Go back and you will discover, for debt, that where there's time to pay cause of action is after time to pay finishes. 

Then my case that as the appeal is a term of when debt is due that it is another time arguably for cause of action to run from

So to help in your refutal you need prove 
-claim is not debt recovery first and a simple contract eg. resolvable by returning the parking paid for!? 

Engage with your reasoning. All through the forum it's about money owed. In the reverse if the driver claimed for breach of the contract eg the parking provided was in fact a potato then cause of action is when the parking was bought. Immediate breach. Here the claim is for a debt not an item or a service. Not a simple contract alone. A debt claim.

The PPC is not claiming the breach but the money owed. Money owed determined by proving the breach then is the claim in time to be denied as statute barred.

So it's possible to get a CCJ even if Limitations Act stops recovery via the court system. 

Yes in the CC judges may just accept Limitations Act and CCJ could be avoided but legally the debt remains unless proved otherwise.

No right to contract so void 
terms not clear  voidable
terms unfair  voidable
defendant not identified or identifiable  dismissed

etc 

Fruitcake

This is getting us nowhere. If it ever got to court then a judge would decide, but I stand by my statement. The cause of action stems from an alleged breach of contract on the day of (alleged) parking. Debt recovery comes later, so even if the limitation for recovery of the alleged debt starts later, the limitation for the original (alleged) breach of contract starts on the date of the alleged breach of contract.

The motorist does not need to refute anything, only state that any claim for a breach of contract is statute barred by the Act as of six years after the date of the original breach of (alleged) contract as defined by section 5 of said Act.

As far as the current raft of late claims is concerned, the same statement should be sent to the scammers and scamilicitors. Let them decide if they think they have a claim for debt after the limitation for the original (alleged) breach of contract has expired.