VCS CCBC Claim Form - Not the driver - 6 years ago

Grizebeck

HNZS said:

Fruitcake said:

You need to write to the claimant and their solicitors, including the proof that the alleged event was in April 2016 by enclosing a copy of the NTK showing that date, and that the PCN/NTK number matches that on the CCBC claim form.

You then tell them to FRO as the Limitations Act prevents them from starting a court claim more than six years after the date of the alleged event.

You should repeat this each and every time you contact them.

Tell them to cease and desist, and instruct them all to erase your data.

As for your defence, you must highlight the fact that this case is statute barred by the Limitations Act, thus the claim is vexatious. 

Have you complained to the landowner yet, and your MP?

Thanks for the advice - 

No complaints to landowner or MP - I don't even know the exact place where the ticket would have happened (so wouldn't know where to start to find the landowner) as I picked up the car from the garage - so it would have happened at some-point in time / some-where when the car was with them. I honestly had no forethought that it would get this far and that at some stage it would surely become reasonably clear that as keeper I was not driver and therefore could surely not enter into any kind of contract. But we live and learn!

.. ... It took me a while to get the FRO acronym - Brilliant

re. statute barred - I read somewhere that this only applies if there has been no requests for payment for 6 years. But in this instance there has been persistent /pestering requests.
Also statute barred prevents this going via the courts, but that the debt is still there - it just cannot be pursued via courts.
And that they could use other methods (private bailiffs (but not court appointed))
Any truth in these?

Where did you read this incorrect information

HNZS

https://www.checkmyfile.com/articles/does-statute-barred-mean-my-debt-is-written-off.htm

It came up as the top post in google search so was the first one I (skim) read - I've heard of checkmyfile so figured the info would be accurate?

Jenni_D

The clock only stops if you have admitted at any point that the debt exists. It would seem that this is not the case, so the Limitations Act applies.

Trainerman

I am not legally trained, but my understanding is that though they could send silly letters, that is all they could do. If that happened to me, I would write once saying it was disputed, and any more letters could lead to a harassment claim. I would then invite them to go away in short, sharp, jerky movements

HNZS

Jenni_D said:

The clock only stops if you have admitted at any point that the debt exists. It would seem that this is not the case, so the Limitations Act applies.

Fantastic - Thank you.

HNZS

Trainerman said:

I am not legally trained, but my understanding is that though they could send silly letters, that is all they could do. If that happened to me, I would write once saying it was disputed, and any more letters could lead to a harassment claim. I would then invite them to go away in short, sharp, jerky movements

Hi Trainerman - I have told them mentioned previously to them (their legal teams) that in light of all the information i had sent already that I anything further would be seeking legal advice and to stop further harassment.

I guess they are calling my bluff!

Umkomaas

We haven't seen any ongoing attempt at debt collection beyond a 6-year statute barred point in time. 

Fruitcake

In Scotland, a debt ceases to exist after five years.

In England and Wales, a debt still exists (although in your case it is an unproven or alleged debt) after six years, but the claimant is barred by statute from progressing it through the courts. 
A claim can be progressed through the courts after six years, but only if it has begun before or by six years from the date the alleged debt occurred.
A claim cannot be started after the sixth anniversary of the date the alleged debt occurred.

That is, a court claim, not any pre-action preparation or exchange of information, nor threatogrammes, nor a letter of/before claim. It must be a court claim in an English or Welsh court, or through the County Court Business Centre in Northampton.

Coupon-mad

If this is definitely about the April 2016 PCN (the ref in the POC matches? - this is VITAL to be sure about) then I feel you shouldn't use the template defence.

See what @Johnersh thinks but surely this could be a really simple defence. 

- liability for any sum is denied. The car was not at the stated location on the date stated. 

- The defendant believes the Claimant has made an error with the date, using American dates in their notes. The PCN they refer to was from April 2016 and is statute barred under the Limitation Act.

- In any case, for that parking charge the driver was named and their address for service was supplied in (month/year) to BW Legal who cancelled the litigation.  There is no liability for the registered keeper for the PCN ref stated, regardless of date.

- The keeper was not driving the car when it was parked in April 2016 (not July 2016).

- The court is invited to strike the Claim out  or to order full and better particulars with date stamped photographs, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action.

Johnersh

Probably too late with this, but a limitation point is a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.

The AoS should reflect that. It should then be lodged with an application to strike out, seeking costs.