DCB Legal Letter Before Claim Highview Parking

Bluefeather

Fruitcake said:

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.

The defendant should write to claimant before case asking for proof that it's not statute barred 
- it's making the claimant show their hand
-gives opportunity to avoid CCJ being lodged as it's an unpaid debt
-claimant could accuse defendant of being unreasonable in not bringing it to their attention before case was heard. Why? Because the burden of proof is with them and it being introduced so late prevents them compiling proof on when cause of action begins. 

Jenni_D

Does a statutory defence need to be specifically raised by a defendant? (e.g. the CRA 2015 shouldn't need to be raised by a defendant as a judge has a duty in law to consider it. I wonder if the same applies for the Limitations Act).

nosferatu1001

It is an affirmative defnece, to my knowledge

Fruitcake

I would not advocate warning the scammers that their case is about to become statute barred just before it becomes statute barred.
Delaying tactics such as, seeking debt advice, put the case on hold, then asking for more information to stretch the thirty days if necessary, definitely yes. The latter is a grey area, but the CPR does allow it in certain circumstances.
Warning them they are about to run out of time, and pointing them in the direction of parts of the Limitations Act that might help the scammers, 11ft bargepole, touching it with one, not going to do that.
(11ft because you wouldn't want to touch it with a 10ft bargepole.)

Bluefeather

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428620-highviewdcbl-3yrs-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-1-3-upper-green-east/

Coupon-mad

CAG is completely useless for PPC advice so there's no point looking at what their posters say, sadly.

Bluefeather

Jenni_D said:

Does a statutory defence need to be specifically raised by a defendant? (e.g. the CRA 2015 shouldn't need to be raised by a defendant as a judge has a duty in law to consider it. I wonder if the same applies for the Limitations Act).

Once it's accepted that it is a debt issue the Limitations Act can be considered correctly. 

The CRA sets standards for contracts amongst other things see my points above about void and voidable. 

Limitations Act prevents somethings from happening it does not in law prevent a claim only stops in court recovery/restitution of loss from it. (overly simplifies but concise) 

Castle

The High Court found it was on the date of completion of the work or service, rather than the payment due date in:-
Ice Architects Ltd v Empowering People Inspiring Communities (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 281 (QB) (16 February 2018) (bailii.org)

Bluefeather

Fruitcake said:

I would not advocate warning the scammers that their case is about to become statute barred just before it becomes statute barred.
Delaying tactics such as, seeking debt advice, put the case on hold, then asking for more information to stretch the thirty days if necessary, definitely yes. The latter is a grey area, but the CPR does allow it in certain circumstances.
Warning them they are about to run out of time, and pointing them in the direction of parts of the Limitations Act that might help the scammers, 11ft bargepole, touching it with one, not going to do that.
(11ft because you wouldn't want to touch it with a 10ft bargepole.)

I'd check the situation carefully before not asking for proof that recovery of money has run out of time. For all you know they may have good evidence that cause of action runs from another date and first you see it is possibly days before court date.

As I pointed out. Here working from wrong cause of action date. I have proved it's at least the payment terms now is the appeal process an extension.

My opinion this varies from PPC to PPC

Jenni_D

Bluefeather said:

I have proved it's at least the payment terms now is the appeal process an extension.

Have you? All you've done is explain your reasoning, not proven anything. I'd say a High Court decision trumps your belief.

Castle said:

The High Court found it was on the date of completion of the work or service, rather than the payment due date in:-
Ice Architects Ltd v Empowering People Inspiring Communities (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 281 (QB) (16 February 2018) (bailii.org)