DCB Legal Letter Before Claim Highview Parking

Bluefeather

As previous if after advice you know the claim is statute barred then my view is write before court case

To rely on Limitation Act you need a debt. 

See next post 

Bluefeather

Alleged debt:

Court process is

Test contract and other challenges

if valid 
Statute barred? Look into contract and correspondence for the cause of action to see if in time 

if not valid
Limitation Act irrelevant

So on valid contract proved next defence if out of time debt hangs on terms of payment for cause of action which could be related to appeal process in some contracts. 

Jenni_D

Bluefeather said:

At last we are in agreement

That's a somewhat huge leap from me saying:

Jenni_D said:

Bluefeather said:

It 's debt yes or no

No ... the nearest it can be argued is as an alleged debt.

🙄

Bluefeather

Jenni_D said:

Bluefeather said:

At last we are in agreement

That's a somewhat huge leap from me saying:

Jenni_D said:

Bluefeather said:

It 's debt yes or no

No ... the nearest it can be argued is as an alleged debt.

🙄

see above
Unless you prove a PCN is not about non payment then cause of action decided by terms of payment

The case you posted looked into case where debt was acknowledged because it's only then the Limitation Act applies. 

So where debt is disputed or the amount first contract is valid then if debt is it in time. 
Other parts of claim don't disappear. 

I started to this with prove to me Limitation Act here is NOT about contract debt. You are now saying that alleged debt is not the same as debt. For the claimant and defendant money is owed or not.

The Limitation Act can no more give you wings to be a fairy than it can be applied where there is no debt (here) or damages/fraud (in other circumstances) 

So if court decides no debt then Limitation Act irrelevant 

If debt into contract to establish the cause of action 

Prove to me it's not about debt. That is what you must do or accept the cause of action date is determined by the contracts payments terms which could go as far as appeal terms. 

nosferatu1001

Or, we jsut igtnore this as not of any help to the OP, and should be taken into its own thread

Bluefeather

That's it then.
It's payment terms NOT invoice date unless NOT about a debt. 

I hope the legal discussion helps avoid traps set by PPC. Imagine rushing to court thinking the Limitation Act was another silver bullet only to hit ground wings on fire from poor legal understanding.. 

Misunderstanding here is dangerous but generally the guides are effective which is important. 

It would be helpful to everyone to discuss if the appeal offers move when payment is due. Perhaps other members may take that up. 

Jenni_D

🙄🙄

Irresistible force meets immovable object.

Just because we don't want to continue a disagreement does not in any way mean that you have "won". Far from it.

Bluefeather

I put that this is about debt and nobody has proved it's anything but about a debt claim. 

I believe by first developing my knowledge then applying to the situation that I have helped others learn how the LA is relevant to a PCN. 

You can disagree with me. I have no problem but you have only opinions to offer and not proof that as a debt claim that the cause of action determined by terms other than the invoice date. 

That insistence was dangerous so I figured is better to walk you through why. 

I have limited time and have now applied my learning to help resolve the Excel v Wilkinson misunderstanding before that causes damage to people without good legal resources. 

Egbert_Nobacon

Refer to the earlier advice and give them a bloody nose and have some fun.
They are dealing with a lot of PCNs and may overlook the circumstances and go ahead with the claim.
See what a judge thinks of a so called expert legal professional organisation.

BTW is this a Highview record as these are usually cancelled after one email 

nosferatu1001

No, we chose not to continue, as it's of no help to the OP. Start a new thread.