They are oh so wrong when they try to distance themselves from their bailiffs actions. They as data processes should & must know if they are acting within the law yet they do not protest at the implied implication that they are not acting within the law. Perhaps they think a court might be a better place to answer such matters. I would have thought that Westminster had had enough of courts etc apparently not

RLP consider payment as admitting guilt so either way you lose. You go on their data base no matter what you do or don't do

TD I shouldn't bother as its clearly an attempt to get you to self-incriminate yourself Best advice ignore the question:D

I had a porous cylinder & even though it was months out of warranty LR replaced the engine FOC. They knew having dealt with me before that I would invoke SoGA if they refused

Particularly as its a fixed fee I doubt you will succeed in disputing it no matter how much work you think they have or haven't done. If there had been complications causing the lawyer to work harder & longer they would have still only been paid their agreed fixed fee

In you PI claim are you also suing the property occupier/landlord as they will have occupiers liability

Its probably part of some other vehicle by now

Your very welcome:grin:

Clients of you know who are they not The kid will probably still get a demand for payment:rolleyes:

I'm sorry but I hope the guy rots in hell Being tipped over the edge means you top yourself not your kids & wife:mad:

Who COULD you mean SP when you refer to naysayers:rolleyes:

Tell your dad well done

Great but amongst the drinks I should like to see Beer, Spirits (for which a small 'donation' will be requested) & amongst the food I should like to see weed/hashis/ (sorry class A drugs are not available) WARNING The establishment, including the immediate surroundings is a non-smoking zone and failing to comply WILL result in an offender being fined £80 reduced to £40 if paid withing 14 days In addition a parking charge of £3 per hour or part thereof will be payable

Debt collectors & solicitors may unwittingly become involved in money laundering:|. Criminals are ‘inventing’ outstanding debts which are then collected (usually in cash) then washed through the accounts of the solicitor or DCA before being paid to the ‘creditor’ Therefore in order to avoid the very serious charges of money laundering which carries a sentence of up to 14 years both should, as part of their due diligence, ensure they know who their clients are and that the debts are genuine.

Chasing an alleged debt after so long even if owed allows you to argue 'change of position' Speak with a benefit specialist lawyer asap

I'll say it again 'In practice' limitation runs from the last payment the reasoin being that date of payment is a provable fact its also more likely to stop the creditor from either inventing a later date or withholding indefinitely from issuing of a default thereby extending limitation. Remember we are talking SIX YEARS not months but years & if a creditor hasn't sort to resolve matters long before limitation kicks in then they don't deserve to win. Also as litigation years after the event may mean the debtors has no evidence/agreement & if the creditor refuses or is unable to supply it etc then the debtor could argue Laches

If the debtor is on benefits & the agency makes a (mortgage) payment even in part BEFORE the 6 year limit then the time starts running again

Does for me now

Also if they have admitted they don't have the agreement or you think it may be time barred the court will think what was the point of the SAR. There often comes a time when its best to let sleeping dogs lay

If the court construes that your SAR implies recognition of the debt time will be restarted. However to defeat such an argument mark ALL of your correspondence 'Without Prejudice"

The statute of limitations clock starts running on the date of last activity on your account. Typically this is the date you last made payment, but it can also be the date you last made payment, a promise to pay, entered a payment agreement, or even acknowledged liability for the debt. Generally, you can check your credit report for the last date of activity to figure out when the statute of limitations clock started. Amongst mortgage lenders, there used to be considerable confusion as to how long they have to sue for the shortfall. It was commonly thought that a mortgage, usually being by Deed, once the property is sold leaving a shortfall debt (cause of action) the lender had a further twelve years within which to claim the outstanding balance. In two important cases, the courts have now confirmed that this is not the case: Bristol & West plc v Bartlett 2002 EWCA Civ 1181 and West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson 2005 1 WLR 2303. Mortgage lenders have twelve years to sue for the outstanding principal under s20(1) Limitation Act 1980 and six years to sue for outstanding interest under s20(5). Time begins to run on the date to which the right to receive the money accrued and the fact that the property had sold and the mortgage discharged does not disapply s20. In practice, time begins to run from the date of the last payment (bearing in mind that any part or full payment starts time running afresh). The Society argued that it had commenced proceedings just inside the twelve years from the date of sale. The House of Lords held that the claim was out of time, and it should have commenced within twelve years of the date of the last payment. Furthermore, if the borrower enters into communication with the lender in which, as a matter of constructions, he acknowledges the debt, he then extends the time for the lender to sue. Therefore importantly ALL communication should be in writing and must be marked “Without Prejudice”. Bradford & Bingley plc v Rashid 2006 1WLR. Important note: Any payment made by, say, the Benefits Agency, even if not expressly authorised by the borrower, revives the right for the lender to sue from the date of said payment. Bradford & Bingley plc v Cutler 2008 EWCA Civ 74.

Be warned that if a debt is time barred & the borrower enters into any communication with the lender in which, as a matter of construction, he inadvertently acknowledges the debt (this could be interpreted as such by a CCA request or a SAR) the debtor extends the time for the lender to sue. Therefore importantly all communication should be in writing and must be marked “Without Prejudice”. Bradford & Bingley plc v Rashid 2006 1WLR. Important note: Any payment made by, say, the Benefits Agency, even if not expressly authorised by the borrower, revives the right for the lender to sue by extending the limitation period from the time of said payment. Bradford & Bingley plc v Cutler 2008 EWCA Civ 74.

Link broken

The statute of limitations clock starts running on the date of last activity on your account. Typically this is the date you last made payment, a promise to pay, entered a payment agreement, or even acknowledged liability for the debt. Generally, you can check your credit report for the last date of activity to figure out when the statute of limitations clock started. Amongst mortgage lenders, there used to be considerable confusion as to how long they have to sue for the shortfall. It was commonly thought that a mortgage, usually being by Deed, once the property is sold leaving a shortfall debt (cause of action) the lender had a further twelve years within which to claim the outstanding balance. In two important cases, the courts have now confirmed that this is not the case: Bristol & West plc v Bartlett 2002 EWCA Civ 1181 and West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson 2005 1 WLR 2303. Mortgage lenders have twelve years to sue for the outstanding principal under s20(1) Limitation Act 1980 and six years to sue for outstanding interest under s20(5). Time begins to run on the date to which the right to receive the money accrued and the fact that the property had sold and the mortgage discharged does not disapply s20. In practice, time begins to run from the date of the last payment (bearing in mind that any part or full payment starts time running afresh). The Society argued that it had commenced proceedings just inside the twelve years from the date of sale. The House of Lords held that the claim was out of time, and it should have commenced within twelve years of the date of the last payment. Furthermore, if the borrower enters into communication with the lender in which, as a matter of constructions, he acknowledges the debt, (this could include a CCA request or even a SAR) he then extends the time for the lender to sue. Therefore very importantly all communication should be in writing and must be marked “Without Prejudice”. Bradford & Bingley plc v Rashid 2006 1WLR. Important note: Any payment made by, say, the Benefits Agency, even if not expressly authorised by the borrower, revives the right for the lender to sue. Bradford & Bingley plc v Cutler 2008 EWCA Civ 74.

However there is an argument that to place a default on file after 6 years does amount to defamation &/or harassment