Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm after some advice before I fill in and return the section 172 "request for driver name and address".  I am the registered keeper of the vehicle stated . The alleged offence (Exceeding variable Motorway speed limit 68mph in a 60mph zone) was committed on 29/07/2020, the NIP is dated 31/07/2020.  On Wednesday the 29th July 2020 a friend and I were driving for a much needed break from South Wales to spend a few days in Yorkshire, we shared the driving for the 4.5 hour journey at just over an hour at a time each.  My problem is this, 1.I have no idea of the location or recollection of the place to which the police refer (M1 Northbound Duckmanton Derbyshire?)  and 2. I cannot say with any accuracy which of us were the driver at that particular time.  I have a clean driving licence and am usually very speed aware using the cruise control at most times. an offence for a mere 8mph on a motorway with everything that is going on at the moment seems extremely harsh IMO.   I would much appreciate if anyone could offer help / advice at what I should do next? Many thanks  🙁
    • Hello just asking,? I purchased a discount new cooker as it had cosmetic damage, paid £250 After a few days I noticed the fan never went off, I contacted the company and they finally collected the cooker and took it away, ( for 7 days) And fixed it,   It never seamt right? It steamed up in the clock panel and the oven door was mis-lined It had multiple dints in the sides Top panel missing on the door to stop food dropping in, Shelving didn’t fit well Then main fan started to rattle and tap   I put up with all this as it was *discounted Then one day whilst cooking we could smell a funny smell Turns out the wires had melted on the back of cooker I contacted the company again and it took a lot of phone calls to try and get the problem dealt with, speaking to several different staff....I wanted a refund or replacement I had had the cooker 6 months just! I asked for a refund or replacement    I contacted trading standards and citizens advice and they advised me what steps to take! Finally the company offered to replace the cooker, then later changed! As they explained that nothing came in to replace it they were too damaged! ( been told they buy at auction damaged) They wanted to look at the cooker and inspect the damage themselves, so I agreed they collected the cooker, No update, or communication I had to constantly chase them up Nothing was sorted out with 7 days we had no cooker, I threatened Trading standards were now involved Last thing on a Friday in June they rang to say I can collect the cooker it’s fixed!!!! I had expressed all along I didn’t feel safe using this cooker anymore with my family I didn’t want this cooker fixing again ( by whom) They started to blame me and said I should be grateful they aren’t charging me for the repair!   Still today in August this is not resolved  Trading standards have been useless  Citizens advice have told me to take them to small claims court!???? I have had to purchase another cooker  As I’ve been left without one.   I am in a vulnerable situation in life, Im a carer for my husband and have children and have no one to help me sort this mess out! I am struggling with making the county court claim ? What shall I do?   ( sorry for long message) ✨
    • The committee's report is pretty damning, isn't it? The Home Office refused to supply the scientific evidence it said its decisions were based on and you can possibly see Demonic's hand in this - he has form for ignoring select committees.
    • and that facts start to come out 'Inexplicable' failure to quarantine travellers to the UK made pandemic 'far worse', say MPs UK ‘almost unique’ in rejecting border checks in crucial March period – without scientific basis – as hundreds of infected passengers arrived every day   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-quarantine-travel-cases-deaths-covid-a9653451.html   "Strikingly, it says the Home Office refused to set out any scientific advice to explain the “grave error”, despite repeatedly promising to do so – a stance attacked as “completely unacceptable”."   So even aside from not testing in any way people who returned: "Yvette Cooper, the committee’s chair, said the critical mistake was the decision on 13 March – 10 days before lockdown – “to remove all self-isolation guidance for travellers arriving in the UK”."   "The MPs also pour scorn on the Home Office’s argument that 99.9 per cent of arrivals are obeying requirements to quarantine for two weeks, finally introduced in June. They describe the claim, made by home secretary Priti Patel as “unreliable”, because it appeared to be based only a limited number of compliance checks made and three fines issued."       So not only did Johnsons cronies NOT make any efforts whatsoever to test people returning, and NOT properly check people were self isolating, they actually stopped telling returnees to self isolate for 10 days before the country was locked down as the number of epidemic infections exploded.   Wonder why?   "The committee’s inquiry heard that, in the crucial 10 days between scrapping isolation guidance and the lockdown, up to 10,000 infected people arrived."  
    • You can pay on the day of travel or by midnight the next charging day..   Appeal to TfL on the grounds that you have already paid within the allowed time and enclose proof of payment.
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 8 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies
JonCris

Time Barred when?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2555 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by JonCris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont understand this bit:

 

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.

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dont understand this bit:

 

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.

 

dx

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it might be more correct to say that time runs from the date a payment fell due and was not paid.

 

For instance, if the rule really wa that time ran frm the date the last payment was made, then imagine that you took an approved payment holiday of, say, one year - and then didn't make any more payments at all. I am quite sure that your 6 years, or 12 years wouldn't start running from the date of the payment prior to the payment holiday.

 

I think that time runs from the date upon which a creditor becomes entitled to sue for the debt - meaning the date that a due payment was not made.

 

The expiry of the limitation period confers a kind of adverse posession over the debt and so the non-payment of an installment must be contrary to the rights of the creditor.

 

I suppose that acknowledging the debt is equivalent to acknowledging the rights of the creditor.

 

I'm afraid that I disagree about the effectiveness of using without prejudice.

WP merely protects from disclosure to a court the details of attempts to negotiate a settlement. However, with leave of the court, the contents of WP communications can be heard by the court if they in some way are germane to the issue to be tried - and not merely the basis of settlement.

 

WP might be effective but I think that it would be much safer to include a statement that the correspondence is being entered into without any admission of liability and without any admission of the debt.

 

Probably best to head the letter "Without prejudice and without any acknowledgment of liability"


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree BankFodder and I rely, also, upon the Judgment of Wilkinson:

 

Lord Scott of Foscote at para 29:

It follows that, in my opinion, the mortgage money outstanding became due and payable by Mr and Mrs Wilkinson one month after they had made default in paying a monthly instalment. For the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980, whether section 8 (an action on a specialty) or section 20 (an action to recover a principal sum secured by a mortgage) time, therefore, had begun to run well before 9 October 1989 when the society took possession of the house with a view to its sale. It follows, also, that the building society's claim in this action, which was commenced on 12 November 2002, is statute-barred.

 

We've been having this debate in another thread also, if you were interested in that:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/268907-when-debt-statute-barred-2.html#post3048134

 

As far as my understanding goes from the wording of the Limitation Act and the relevant precedent cases, it goes as follows:

 

--> Initial cause of action (missing a payment) begins the clock ticking.

--> If no further payments or acknowledgements are made, then the above would be the relevant date for the purposes of the Limitation Act.

--> If further payment or acknowledgement is made after the initial cause of action occurred, then the date of this payment and/or acknowledgement would now constitute the relevant date for the purposes of the Limitation Act.

 

 

Cheers

UF


I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris, I've found the source of your posts, which are copied pretty much word for word. I've emailed the editor of that source, who is on the face of it a very well educated person. For all intents and purposes, he appears to agree with me:

 

Thank you for your message. I will review the entries on the pages you refer

to shortly, but the essential point is, as you identify, that on the facts

of those cases, time (last) started running afresh from the date of last

payment being an acknowledgement and part payment for the purposes of

sections 29-31 Limitation Act 1980. However, it is in each case a question

of fact as to when, for the purposes of section 20 Limitation Act 1980, the

right to receive the money actually accrued.

 

The above is the response I've received. Fact is that the assumption that in practice the date always is that of the last payment is irreconcilable with the Judgment that is the active precedent. It is a matter of fact based on a case by case basis, which is what I've been trying to get across.

 

Cheers

UF


I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore could you explain exactly how a Judgment could be obtained in the situation that the claimant is unable to substantiate any claim with relevant paperwork? If that paperwork does not exist, then the claimant would fail at the first hurdle in court, so long as the defendant argued their case.

 

Assuming that the claimant did have the relevant paperwork to be successful, then the defendant would be entitled to a copy of all of this before any court hearing, under the Civil Procedure Rules, in order to form their defence effectively.

 

Cheers

UF


I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you are STILL taking the assumption that the defendant defaulting on the account and the claimant issuing a default are the same thing - they are not!! When their Lordships spoke of the defendant defaulting, they were talking of them missing payments.

 

The defendant defaulting on payments and the creditor issuing a default are two entirely different things!!

 

The date on which the defendant defaulted on a payment is easily ascertained as the dates would be a part of any contract and so it is a provable fact.

 

The claimant withholding issuing a default has absolutely no bearing on matters and would not, in any way shape or form, extend the limitation period. This is clear from the wording of the Wilkinson judgment; the time runs from when the right to receive the moneys accrued which they clearly identified as being when the defendant missed payments.

 

UF


I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wanted to complain about my mortgage lender regarding something they put on my mortgage offer stating that I had past and present financial difficulties when I didn't back in 2007 is this too late now?to take them to court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I wanted to complain about my mortgage lender regarding something they put on my mortgage offer stating that I had past and present financial difficulties when I didn't back in 2007 is this too late now?to take them to court?

 

Hello there. Please consider starting your own thread as you're likely to get much more help.

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...