MIB-Close Credit Management - Claim issued

[the_shadow]

I got the first 2 letters on the same day as you (the analyst) and the court letter on the same day as you!! COINCEDENCE? Had you sent anything relating to "statute barred" to C.C.M.

As it stands I have sent the "acknowledgment of service" slip to the court and emailed M.I.B. requesting all information on the case such as timescales. Today I am going seek legal advice.

Let us share anything we come up with

 

Whilst certainly you should share your information it might be an idea to start your own thread with the details behind your claim also?

 

S.

[i.ash213]

Hi, I am unfortunately in a similar situation. Ccm have contacted me recently and my accident was in 2003, they demand £15000 from me, contacted national debtline and they said they have received a number of calls regarding the same issue with ccm.

They told me they are unsure whether the 6 year rule applies as they are claiming for personal injury and that they are looking into the matter and told me to contact them next week to see if they have any updates.

Just wondering if anyone has any further info regarding this issue and if anyone has actually been to court in regards to this matter.

Ash

[Jasper1965]

Seems that the MIB are busy with these claims at the moment.

 

Read my post

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?290278-MIB-Close-Credit-Management&p=3264062&viewfull=1#post3264062

 

As bazooka Boo and others in similar threads have stated the action must be brought within the period specified by Sec 11 of the Limitation Act 1980.

 

The MIB gain the "right to sue" upon subrogation of the injured parties rights when they make the payment.

Any rights passed on by a subrogation cannot exceed the rights that originally existed. (nemo dat Quod non habet) "One cannot give what one does not have" is the best if not always the most widely used translation.

The MIB acquire the rights of the injured party to an extent not exceeding the rights of said injured party.

There is no new cause of action for it still revolves around the injuries sustained by the subrogator.

The insurer might have made a payout to the injured party but that does not in itself constitute an admittance of guilt by the third party.

neither does it invoke any new right to sue for the return of any monies paid out without the admittance, approbation or in the absence of both a court judgment ordering payment from the third party.

The insurer does have the opportunity to seek repayment of any monies but any such action is still constrained by statute.

 

What exactly are they going to claim for and how will they claim it without mentioning the words "personal injuries"?

 

It is important to understand that an insurer or any other third party only has the right to sue for reimbursement upon settlement of a claim under a process called subrogation and that subrogation does not extend the rights of any party simply transfers the "use of them".

[Endymion]

They can simply issue proceedings and plead for Section 33 relief from sanctions under the Limitation Act 1980. The Defendant will have to show that they have been prejudiced by the length of time since the expiry of limitation which I doubt they will do and as they have comitted a criminal act in the first place by not having insurance then the Court is likely to grant the Claimant/MIB section 33 relief to bring the claim out of time.

[Jasper1965]

Is it not the plaintiff who will need to plead a prejudice caused by the limitation period?

 

I can see this might arise if a case took say four years to settle but this will depend on individual claims.

 

The Court has to pay particular attention to the following upon a Sec 33 plea:

 

(3)In acting under this section the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to—

 

(a)the length of, and the reasons for, the delay on the part of the plaintif;

 

(b)the extent to which, having regard to the delay, the evidence adduced or likely to be adduced by the plaintiff or the defendant is or is likely to be less cogent than if the action had been brought within the time allowed by section 11 [F34, by section 11A] or (as the case may be) by section 12;

 

©the conduct of the defendant after the cause of action arose, including the extent (if any) to which he responded to requests reasonably made by the plaintiff for information or inspection for the purpose of ascertaining facts which were or might be relevant to the plaintiff’s cause of action against the defendant;

 

(d)the duration of any disability of the plaintiff arising after the date of the accrual of the cause of action;

 

(e)the extent to which the plaintiff acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the act or omission of the defendant, to which the injury was attributable, might be capable at that time of giving rise to an action for damages;

 

(f)the steps, if any, taken by the plaintiff to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice and the nature of any such advice he may have received.

 

I suggest the plaintiff stands to fail in cases where the application is sought well outside time on a,e and f with c unknown, d not applicable and b being a potential for the defendant to simply state that they are prejudiced because "after x years they have no recollection of the traumatic events of......."

 

If the defendant has been tried and convicted in a criminal Court for any offence related to that claim the Plaintiff is unlikely to be able to plead that they were unaware (though of course some delay might accrue) of the time limitations involved.

 

Delays incurred subject to criminal proceedings IMO is a plea under "P" for "prejudices" not a valid reason for a sec 33 to be awarded in itself. If "illegal activity" is plead then the acknowledgment of such should be that the period of limitation begins from the moment of conviction.

 

You'll notice the tabloid stories of schoolboys suing their mentors 40 years later all centre around cases where a conviction is secured , not where a conviction WAS secured all those years back.

 

There has to be a set of guidelines to limit these matters and there have to be exceptional circumstances exceptions but a systematic manipulation of statute by a large institution? Without good reason in each particular case this should not be tolerated.

 

It seems that the MIB has sat on claims for years and somebodys just found a large pile of them.

 

And as a footnote I would suggest that in traumatic cases the MIB could potentially open themselves up to Human rights issues being raised against them by the defendant.

[Bazooka Boo]

I fail to see how s33 will revive this either, if it is what I have read and have interpreted?

 

This is neither intentional nor negligent, she drove into the back of him, his only offence was to not have insurance, which would have been dealt with by the courts.

The MIB in their infinite wisdom saw fit to compensate the IMO 'at fault' driver for the lucrative 'whiplash' injury.

 

I just think that they are trying it on and hoping that they can get further cases to court in order to hide their incompetence.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CE0QFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stjohnschambers.co.uk%2Ffile_download%2F678%2FNo%2BLimits%2Barticle%2BSolicitors%2BJournal%2B28.07.09.pdf&rct=j&q=section%2033%20limitation%20act&ei=lGs4TbG9L5KGhQeGv9nRCg&usg=AFQjCNHEKzoPmKAltQdf_2HayFWeeiudJw&cad=rja

[Jasper1965]

great post that bazooka it was a very interesting read.

 

 

I'm still for entering the statute barred defence for these actions where more than three years has passed and then fighting any sec 33 application on its own merits.

 

What is heartening is that the claims are being submitted before a sec 33 app is made which might prove difficult for the claimant and also ensures that they aren't going to get the same judge each time so will get varied responses I'm sure to any such attempt under sec 33.

 

It's likely that this first wave will test the climate and then we'll see a new strategy which will probably involve them buying lots of tickets in the judge lottery and then farming out sec 33 apps in the shop which gives the best return.

 

To this end and in immediate response to those who have been issued with proceedings would it not be prudent for us to examine ways in which a section 33 app could be defeated?

 

I suggest that the following might prejudice the defendant in cases where there was an extended delay between the incident and the claim sufficient to make the over limit period some months or years:

 

Records. Upon legal advice or not one would not be expected to keep personal records of the incident indefinitely in anticipation of a claim out of time. The malfeasor is afforded the protection of the Limitation Act and when the relevant period has expired it would not then be unreasonable for the malfeasor to destroy all personal records of the incident as the time within which they could be chased has expired.

Deliberate destruction of pertinent personal records to support ones case is a prejudice if such destruction occured after the limitation period expired. It is also in no way unreasonable behaviour. the law states I must retain my business records for six years, if I am subjected to a review extending back 8 years am I liable for not keeping records longer than the period set out in law? No.

Accidental loss or destruction - Within the lim period then tough, if outside the lim period then the defendant is prejudiced as if the claimant had acted according to the law they would have held these records at the time.

Loss of contact with witnesses. people move around, lose touch, die etc. If the defendant had a witness upon whom they could call and lost touch either accidentally or by design in the period after limitation then the defendant would be prejudiced.

Loss of recollection of facts due to time. the claimant has the benefit of full disclosure of facts throughout the initial case the dfendant may not have been a party to any of this and has solely his memory upon which to rely.

Loss of right to defend oneself. This is not so much prejudice under sec 33 as a prejudice in whole. A claims against B but C steps in and says to B Don't worry I'll sort it out. C fails to put A to the level of proof that B would have required and C loses the case accepting the claims of A at a far greater value than B would have done. . C says Oh I was expecting to win that and not have to pay A so I need my money back. B says to C But you didn't tell me that you were going to settle with them and then claim it back from me otherwise I would have fought the original case myself for a much lower cost.

 

Influencing factors which might prove important:

 

Did MIB keep you informed or seek your advice, witness testimony or agreement throughout the court case and did they keep in contact with you afterwards?

 

can anyone think of any other ways the defendant might be prejudiced by an out of time claim?

[wotsy]

Hi, I am unfortunately in a similar situation. Ccm have contacted me recently and my accident was in 2003, they demand £15000 from me, contacted national debtline and they said they have received a number of calls regarding the same issue with ccm.

They told me they are unsure whether the 6 year rule applies as they are claiming for personal injury and that they are looking into the matter and told me to contact them next week to see if they have any updates.

Just wondering if anyone has any further info regarding this issue and if anyone has actually been to court in regards to this matter.

Ash

 

I've also recieved the same letters from ccm and mib about an incident that happened 8 years ago and it's the first time i've heard from them in all that time, after a quick search on Google it seems that they've been in touch with quite a lot of people about accidents that are years old. I shall follow this thread closely in the hope of finding out just what they're up to.

Please post any answers you get from the national debtline.

[Endymion]

The problems with trying to defend any section 33 application are many. Firstly, it is likely that the initial claim WAS issued and served in time for the 3 year limitation point and as such, judgment was enterred against the Defendant and the MIB then settled the outlay. I doubt the MIB is going to settle a contentious claim without judgment having been enterred. As such, this leaves at least two major problems for the Defendant. First one being is that the MIB can argue that the substantive proceedings are not statute barred due to the action having been brought in time. Not a brilliant argument but one the Court may side with. I suppose the Defendant could then argue that if this is the case then the proceedings by the MIB for recovery are an abuse of process, but in that argument you are agreeing with the MIB that no limitation applies. I also suspect that the MIB will rely upon NIGEL CHARLES BENNETT v GOVERNOR & COMPANY OF THE BANK OF SCOTLAND (2004) but you could probably argue that this case does not relate to PI claims.

 

Secondly, the Defendant then does not have a defence to the claim as Judgment has been enterred against them and then they would have to lodge an appeal, well out of time, in order to try challenge the judgment and maintain a defence and any such appeal is likely to be unsuccessful and at the very least, very expensive with a very good chance of having to pay the costs of the appeal win or lose.

 

As judgment is likely to have been enterred then, as with the case of Cain (albeit an admission of liability)the Claimant loses any real ability to plead prejudice and therefore not allowing Section 33 relief to the Claimant would result in a windfall to the Defendant.

 

Very difficult situation that the OP is in and I feel very sorry for them as in order to truly defend this then a lot of money is going to have to be spent to have any true chance of succeeding against the MIB.

 

I suspect it all hinges on how the first claim was settled. If it was by County Court proceedings and judgment was enterred against the OP then they will have a very large hill to climb. If not by judgment then they may have a good shout at pleading prejudice and succesfully resist any Section 33 application.

[Ladylandy]

My husband has now sent 2 letters asking for full details of the "alledged claim" and I am waiting for a nice summons to land on our mat any day, as they appear to be ignoring correspondence. The first letter also took 10 days to get to us due to the Christmas post.

 

The bit that angers me (well apart from it all) is that interest has been added, no attempt has been made to contact him and we're supposed to just call them up and pay nearly £14K, just like that!

 

We've received 1 letter from MIB, one from CCM (general get in touch etc) then the 7 day or court action one last Saturday, saying this has now reached a "critical stage".

 

Surely the scale of this and the amount of people receiving letters may make cases difficult to defend. Also would CCM not be well aware that we will try to defend on grounds of statute barred, limitations etc and therefore have their defence in place?

 

I just don't see how they can not contact us for years and provide no evidence except date of incident and names of people who are claiming, that have never been mentioned before. It's like someone knocking on your day saying "you trod on my foot 8 years ago and i'm now claiming the cost of my shoes with interest"!

[Bazooka Boo]

OK, just re-read the first page of threads again! Forgot it was a head on...ooopps!

I seriously think the MIB are barking up the wrong tree here I really do, so if they did bring the claim within the three years, (the other party) and won that still leaves nearly 6 years of zero correspondence with the defendant? And EVEN IF there was a CCJ brought, then this would once again have to be reinstated by the courts for collection as too much time has passed.

 

My advice would be to give consumer direct a call (EVERYONE who is in the same situation) then get BBC Watchdog involved, as this is clearly a nationwide problem, plus it would be good to see the MIB answer for it's actions.

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/contact

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/gotastory/

 

Jasper have you made a complaint about CCMismanagement to the OFT&TS? If not you MUST, that letter is IMO libellous.....(what ever that means??)

 

Endymon, have you a link to the case you have quoted? Can't find any reference to it.

[Endymion]

Endymon, have you a link to the case you have quoted? Can't find any reference to it.

 

Here you go...

 

NIGEL CHARLES BENNETT v GOVERNOR & COMPANY OF THE BANK OF SCOTLAND (2004)

 

 

[2004] EWCA Civ 988

CA (Civ Div) (Mummery LJ, Scott Baker LJ, Lawrence Collins J) 23/7/2004

CIVIL PROCEDURE

ABUSE OF PROCESS : ACTIONS : ENFORCEMENT : JUDGMENT CREDITORS : JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS : LIMITATION PERIODS : SECOND ACTION TO ENFORCE EARLIER JUDGMENT : PERSONAL GUARANTEES : PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS : ACTION ON A JUDGMENT : r.3.4 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998 : Part 24 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998 : r.13.3 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998

 

 

It was not an abuse of process for a judgment creditor under an existing judgment to pursue a second action based on that judgment in order to protect its position on the enforcement of its rights for the recovery of the monies due to it.

 

 

 

The appellant (B) appealed against a decision dismissing his application to strike out as an abuse of process an action, either under CPR r.3.4 or CPR Part 24 , brought by the respondent (G). G had brought possession proceedings against B to enforce a second charge it had taken over B's matrimonial home to secure a personal guarantee. In order to protect its position in case it ultimately lost the possession proceedings, in 2001 G commenced a second action against B, which was for a sum due under a default judgment obtained in 1995 in respect of the personal guarantee. G also wished to keep alive the possibility of bankruptcy proceedings against B. In the event, G lost the possession proceedings (see Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No2) (2001) UKHL 44 ). G obtained a default judgment in the second action in 2001. In 2003 G served a statutory demand on B based on the 2001 judgment. B applied to set aside the statutory demand. The court, under CPR r.13.3 , set aside the 2001 judgment, but refused to strike out as an abuse the proceedings in which the 2001 judgment was obtained. B argued that G should have enforced the 1995 judgment within six years of obtaining it. If it had done so, the second action against him would have been unnecessary. The effect of the second action, if allowed to continue, was that the bank would have two identical judgments. The second judgment would deprive B of a limitation defence to the first judgment in circumstances in which the court had no statutory discretion to extend the limitation period.

 

HELD: Applying the principles in ED & F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto (1996) Times, August 9, 1996 : (i) the 1995 judgment created a new debt; (ii) G as a judgment creditor was entitled to bring proceedings based on the judgment debt independently of the original guarantee debt on which the 1995 judgment was founded; (iii) the limitation period applicable to the 1995 judgment was six years from the date of the judgment; and (iv) G commenced its second action within that limitation period. The judge was correct to rule that it could not be an abuse of process per se to commence a second action with the object of preserving one's rights to take bankruptcy proceedings. G had no alternative but to issue a second set of proceedings in circumstances where it wished to preserve its right to proceed in bankruptcy against B in the event the appeal to the House of Lords in relation to the possession proceedings was not found in its favour. At the time that the decision under appeal was made it was common ground that a statutory demand for monies due under a previous judgment was subject to a six year limitation period, see A Debtor (No50A/SD/95), Re (1997) 2 WLR 57 . The decision in Ridgeway Motors Ltd v Allis Ltd (2004) EWHC 1535 (Ch), which held that in the light of Lowsley & anr v Forbes (199 3 WLR 501 Re A Debtor was wrongly decided, did not alter the position in the instant case on abuse of process. The second action could turn out to have been unnecessary if the six year limitation period did not apply to the 1995 judgment, but Re A Debtor had not been cited in Forbes and had not been expressly overruled and therefore the second action was not pointless and was not an abuse of process.

 

Appeal dismissed.

[Bazooka Boo]

No a link, I would like to read it myself Cheers.

[Lily2011]

I am in the same boat! 9 years have passed since the incident! I have received the 'this is at a critical stage, reply within 7 days or court actual will follow' letter. I replied stating Statue barred and they replied accusing me of committing a criminal offence and on this basis they 'are confident' the court will over turn the limitation period. A series of harrassing calls followed. I followed up asking for full disclosure and you won't be surprised to hear that I have received absolutely nothing from them. It seems they are ignoring all requests for any kind of information.

 

I'm not sure about next steps - I have taken legal advice and have been advised to ask for full disclosure but I've already done this to no avail. It seems their next step is simply to issue Court Claims! I'm not entirely sure how it is acceptable to surface after 9 years and then expect somebody to hand over payment.

 

I guess the MIB tactic is to bully and panic people into paying regardless of the facts. It also seems ridiculous that they send a 'letter of assignment' telling you not to contact the MIB and then they take the case back with no notice whatsoever and start issuing claims. It really is disgusting behaviour.

 

The whole situation is making me feel sick with stress. I am truly gutted about this situation.

 

Based on the threads I've been reading today - is it worthwhile liaising directly with the MIB because it seems that as soon as CCM realise they aren't going to make a penny in commission they drop the case like a lead balloon and a court claim follows?

 

The Head of the Recover Department at the MIB is Chris Hoggart. The fax number for the Recovery Department should anyone want to make complaints or send correspondence is 01908 422486

 

I asked the MIB "Have you received any complaints about CCM" to which I was told "yes we have received a few". That was that.

[Ladylandy]

Yes I can agree with the stress part Lilly. I had IBS 2 years ago and now it's back, together with sleepless nights, drinking more and jumping everytime the door goes. It seems so unjust.

 

We have instructed a solicitor so going by the last 2 letters received on a saturday I'm expecting a nice court one tomorrow, so I can have the trio of stress over the weekend!

 

At least we're all in the same boat and can help each other. Nice to know that after one mistake you're branded for life. I wonder if the "alledged claimants" know this happens after they have been paid out?

[Bazooka Boo]

I would STRONGLY urge you to lodge formal complaint with all of the following:

OFT&TS via http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/contact

 

MIB http://www.mib.org.uk/Customer+Charter+and+Feedback/en/Making+a+complaint/Default.htm

 

Your local MP http://www.writetothem.com/

 

& For some bad publicity http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/gotastory/

 

The sooner you start complaining then the sooner you will see some action, CCM are, IMO, extremely foolish for sending out such a letter berating people when they are clearly not in view of the full FACTS!

 

Put simply, you can either sit and wait for court papers to land on your doormat, or you can begin to fight back and make as much noise about the whole sordid corrupt rotten to the core industry, as possible. To do nothing WILL land you with a very hefty debt!

[Jasper1965]

Some good points well made Endymion.

[the_shadow]

I really do find it hard to get my head around this.... not being the brightest tool in the toolbox......

 

There is a limitation on criminal acts just as there are in civil acts and as such if you have not been convicted of the offence then how can they state that because it was a criminal act that no prosecution took place for we can ignore the statute limitation act on the civil recovery side????

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Just seen BB's post... and entirely agree... this seems like the next bandwagon that is being jumped on to make money... start complaining left right and centre esp the MP's... lets get them working for a change.

 

S.

[Bazooka Boo]

It doesn't add up at all, even the s33 argument makes no sense and I don't think is relevant in this instance, not only has CCM or MIB mentioned this in any correspondence, I would certainly go down the SB route first as my defence. In fact I've completely forgot all about the CPR request!!!

Maybe that is the way to deal with this prevalent issue?

Will have to refresh my memory on the thread first...

[postggj]

Just popping in

 

dont know if this has been to court in the past for a ccj etc but personal injury claims must be made within 36 months of the incident

 

i have not read the whole thread by the way so just shooting from the hip

[Endymion]

Does anyone really think complaining to watchdog etc is going to work? I mean, are watchdog really going to champion Defendants who have been driving without car insurance! I think you are going to find few people with large amounts of sympathy for the defendants in these actions unfortnately, what with high insurance premiums due to uninsured drivers etc.

 

Clearly the MIB is going all out to collect their otstanding debts, probably a government initiative I would think, therefore what needs to happen is that a few are selected for trial as test cases, where the Defendants have legal funding from insurers, legal aid etc and then see if they are all statute barred or not. Rest of the cases can then be stayed until the SB arguments are decided.

 

Probably best if the Defendants all got together to put this to the MIB and get a v good lawyer and barrister to represent them in Court after asking the legal aid board to fund the litigation for the test cases or failing that on a no win no fee CFA with after the event insurance.

[Jasper1965]

Here's what I have uncovered which I think might be particularly useful to anyone faced with a claim.

 

Firstly the Notice of Assignment posted in the first post of this thread.

 

It has been established that subrogation is NOT an assignment (Morris v Ford Motor 1973) ergo IMO this notice of assignment has no legal standing.

 

Now the strange bit.

 

Subrogation CAN ONLY occur upon an indemnity policy.

The doctrine of subrogation applies only to contracts of indemnity (Simpson v Thomson 1877) and in the strange world of insurance, life insurance contracts and accident insurance contracts were held not to be contracts of indemnity despite the fact that it is clearly the intention of purchasers of these contracts to indemnify either their families (in the event of death) or, in the event of an accident, to compensate themselves for their lost earnings.

 

Dalby v India and London Life Assurance 00(1854) 15 CB 365 (life insurance).

Bradimrn v Great Western Railway 00(1874) LR 10 Ex 1 (accident insurance).

 

 

So not only is the cause of action highly questionable under the Limitation Act 1980 but the Right to action appears not to exist.

I think the MIB have shot themselves in the foot by issuing the notices of assignment for starters.

The case law is old but remains unchallenged afaik and is still cited by subrogation scholars.

[Lily2011]

Endymion - In your point re Watchdog not standing behind people driving without insurance you assume that everybody the MIB is pursuing was actually driving without insurance. Each case is different, with different circumstances and in my case I did have insurance and I certainly did not carry out a criminal offence despite the allegations. However, despite these facts the MIB chose to pay out and expect me to pick up the bill.....9 years later! I have absolutely no idea what was claimed for but assume it was some feigned injury and the MIB won't release information which they are required to provide.

 

For those people who were actually driving without insurance, even in these circumstances, two wrongs don't make a right and the limitation act, the prevention from harrassment act, the office of fair trading etc all exist for a reason. Not to mention the fact that the government are introducing initiatives to assist people with their debt problems.....and then along comes the MIB who is attempting to disapply the limitation period and almost blackmail people into paying up in fear of court action they can't afford....ultimately landing people in debt.

[Endymion]

Lily2001, by definition, if the MIB is chasing a driver it is because they were driving without insurance. If you had insurance then just tell your insurance company who you had a policy of insurance with at the time of the incident and they will cover the outlay to the MIB and also send details of your insurance policy to the MIB and tell them they paid out in error under the MIB agreement. As such, it may be possible to get out of your predicament relatively easy.