MIB-Close Credit Management - Claim issued

[Bazooka Boo]

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.

What do you suggest then Endymion? I don't hear you providing any constructive advice regarding this so far, just throwing spanners in the works.

 

The whole point of tapping as many resources available to consumers about this, is so eventually they are told to toe the line and buck up their ideas. Watchdog, may or may not investigate this matter, regardless whether drivers have Ins or not, totally irrelavent.

 

The issue is with the MIB pursuing defendants way out of time, an action which must have been brought earlier than it has, nothing to do with insurance, more to do with justification and reason.

[Endymion]

I have advised a number of things to do, but mainly what everyone needs to realise is that all these proceedings will fall into the fast track and so the defendants are going to be liable for the MIB/Claimants costs if they lose. As such, there needs to be a few test cases to test the water and the Defendants bringing these test cases need to be covered by legal aid or after the event insurance. I would say that if a defendant went to trial and lost then they would be looking at a bill of about £10,000 to £15,000 for the MIB's costs (possibly more if they do it on a CFA) and then on top of that there will be your own solicitor and barristers fees if you instruct them.

 

I am sorry if people think I have been throwing a spanner in the works but these are really technical points and I have been trying to show that it is not just going to be the case that a limitation defence can be thrown down and the MIB will discontinue.

 

The MIB are a massive organisation with the weight of the government behind it and they (I would hope) will have taken advice from senior counsel before trying to recover all their outstanding debts that will be out of time. If they do litigate they are going to go to trial with relatively senior counsel and it will costs a small fortune for the Defendants if they lose and if the MIB lose they will undoubtedly go to appeal.

 

In regards to the point that the MIB are pursuing people out of time and that this should be addressed by consumer organisations then I agree that they should be looked into as to why they have not brought proceedings earlier and heads should role within the MIB for it, but i just think that because of the perceived illegal activity of the Defendants then this is not something that is going to be too closely looked at.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Endymion

[Jasper1965]

The MIB are a massive organisation with the weight of the government behind it

 

The MIB is a LTD. company (412787) funded by insurers nothing to do with the government.

[Bazooka Boo]

OK, but I fear we are getting way ahead of ourselves here, they firstly do need to answer as to why they have never brought proceedings before, and most certainly within a timely manner, no DJ would argue to the contrary that they can simply issue proceeding almost a decade down the line, or when it suits them.

It is clearly preposterous to think that this will be the case, IMO I would definitely defend any action which has been brought so late in the day, you can't tell me that they have just happened on a portfolio of alleged debts, blown the dust and cobwebs off, and are now seriously trying to recover their mistake?

 

If so then their admin, and staff including the CEO need a thorough investigation as to why they feel they can completely fail to correspond with defendants, then chase them years after the event. Bringing me back to the same sentence, COMPLAIN to EVERYONE including your local MP, & BBC Watchdog, there is undoubtedly, tens if not hundreds more people in the same situation who have never heard of CAG, but will know of Watchdog and will have quite likely raised the issue with them. GET COMPLAINING PRONTO!!!!

[Jasper1965]

http://www.stubblegal.co.uk/scripts/7Civ05.htm

 

7 Horton v Sadler {[2006] UKHL 27}

 

 

"The Motor Insurers' Bureau argued that section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 should be limited to exceptional cases."

[Bazooka Boo]

Thanks for the link, that is the sort of thing I was looking for.

BUT!

The question here is that the claimant brought action within the allotted time period, what MIB failed to do, is to inform the defendant of the outcome, therefore IMO this debt/compensation IS SB..

 

I will eat this keyboard if I am proved wrong, anyone who has been sent a claim by the MIB or their chosen DCA, should defend it. Otherwise, this will make a complete mockery of the limitations act, I understand that the claimant has 3 years in which to bring a claim to the fore, which they have done so, BUT, under the limitations act, they have 6 years (5 in Lucky Scotland) to request repayment. They have failed to do so, the claimant has got their money, the MIB have lost out.

[wotsy]

I've contacted watchdog and mib about this, and will write to my mp and contact consumer direct on Monday, i just hope others will do the same.

I'm also suspicious that the mib will be paid twice for these payouts, once by the uninsured drivers they pursue and once by the insurance companies. Whoever's running the mib needs investigating thoroughly imo, as does the whole company.

[Bazooka Boo]

Well done for complaining, hopefully like you say, others will follow your lead and something will get done.

[Jasper1965]

I've contacted watchdog and mib about this, and will write to my mp and contact consumer direct on Monday, i just hope others will do the same.

I'm also suspicious that the mib will be paid twice for these payouts, once by the uninsured drivers they pursue and once by the insurance companies. Whoever's running the mib needs investigating thoroughly imo, as does the whole company.

 

It's perverse when you look at it, the MIB should either do what they're supposed to and meet the claims from their funding which is after all budgeted for one presumes on every single car insurance premium sold in the country or do nothing and let the claimant sue the malfeasor.

 

If the MIB didn;t get involved in the first place I doubt very much whether a large percentage of these whiplash type claims would ever see the insides of a courtroom. There's a big difference between getting a nwnf sol for a claim against the MIB as a claim against John Smith, unemployed of 20 Park drive.

 

Classic case of fat cats having their cake and wanting to eat it too.

[Ladylandy]

It is the interest added on top that I feel is so unfair. We're not going to contact you until it's built up for 6 years (or from whenever they paid out), then we're going to cause you financial problems if you can't find £13k at the drop of a hat for an incident you didn't know about from claiments you've never seen or heard of! I may be an alternative therapist but that doesn't extend to psychic ability!

 

When does one cease to be a "defendant", obviously many years after conviction. You also lose the right to be treated as a human being and anyone can spend money in your name and claim it back when they feel like it.

 

Yes we could write to Watchdog etc but there seems to be little sympathy for those who have made errors in judgement in years past!

[Bazooka Boo]

Right, they have 3 years in which to bring the PI case to court, which they have done so, then they have waited another 5,6, or 7 years even longer, in order to chase the money from the unknowing defendant, this is IMO, now statute barred under the limitations act. Fair enough if you don't feel you can complain, this is exactly why they will continue to get away with making up the law as they go along, all this talk of them being such a big organisation, too large to bring down or question is simply defeatist.

 

If you don't feel you can complain because of some misdemeanour years ago, then don't moan about how they are treating you, they will continue to walk all over you.

[Lily2011]

Has anyone heard anything back from CCM or the MIB recently? Has the MIB prodcued any information relating to these claims yet or are they still ignoring requests?

[Ladylandy]

No reply from MIB or CCM from letters sent 2 weeks ago from CAB and 1 week ago from my husband, following advice from solicitor

[Lily2011]

CAB? Citizens Advice Bureau sent a letter for you? Sorry I might have missed this previously.

[Ladylandy]

Yes CAB (Citizen's Advice) sent a letter to CCM on my husband's behalf, stating that the debt was possibly statute barred and that they needed to provide evidence to the contrary.

[nicklea]

I've just been having a look at some information from the MIB, the forms they get you to fill in when you make a claim against them and also the Uninsured Drivers Agreement.

 

My understanding - and it is just my understanding - is that for the MIB to pay out a claim they get the person to make a county court claim and they pay out whatever amount is settled on. They then get the person to sign a document of assignment giving them all the legal rights to pursue you for the debt.

 

So, if you have the MIB coming after you then there will be a CCJ against you from about the time when the MIB paid out to the other party. The 6 year limitation will run from the date that the CCJ was awarded.

 

So I would suggest that you need to send a cpr 18 request to ask if there was a judgement and what the details were. You might also want to think about if you have any grounds to get the original judgement set aside

[Lily2011]

Ah ok that is really useful, I didn't realise they sent letters for people.

 

I wish they would just bugger off or actually produce some evidence as you suggest and get out of my life

[Lily2011]

Nicklea - this is interesting! I always keep on top of this sort of thing to make sure I have a good credit file and I haven't had any problems or CCJ's.

[Ladylandy]

Same for my husband, he recently checked his credit record, no CCJ's or anything similar so I would be surprised if this went to Court previously.

 

My husband has not been un-traceable either, having insurance up to a week befoe the incident and afterwards and registered with DVLA so no excuse there for not contacting

[nicklea]

having insurance immediately before the accident could be very relevant if you need to defend a court claim.

 

It's ringing a bell and I'm not too sure why - let me do some digging

[nicklea]

Ok, I've gone back and done a bit more digging. This is all a bit preliminary and will need more work doing on it.

 

It turns out that on occasion it may be necessary for people to make claims in the county court but that, in reality, most of the time the MIB will pay up without the need for them to go to court. If it had of gone to court then you would have received a summons just like in any other case.

 

So from what you have said I assume that it didn't go to court and the MIB just paid out.

 

Since there has been no court case then I would suggest that since the claim of the MIB is based on assignment of the rights of the injured party then under the nemo dat principle they can only start a claim within either 3 or 6 years depending on the situation of the date of the cause of action ie the accident.

 

Also, if the claimant is anybody other than MIB then they would need to proove that the assignment was lawful before proceedings were commenced.

 

There is also a further defence if you had an annual renewalable policy and the accident had happened within 14 days of the end of your policy. I assume from this that your insurer had sent you out your new insurance document but you hadn't necessarily paid the premium for it.

 

In this case section 152(1) © Road Traffic Act 1988 comes into play. What this means is that your insurer is what is called an Article 75 insurer. This comes from the Articles of the MIB. The practical upshot of this is that the MIB should have looked to your insurer for payment and not you.

 

Hope this helps to stimulate a bit more thought

[Lily2011]

"Since there has been no court case then I would suggest that since the claim of the MIB is based on assignment of the rights of the injured party then under the nemo dat principle they can only start a claim within either 3 or 6 years depending on the situation of the date of the cause of action ie the accident."

 

So if it is an assignement of rights regarding a personal injury claim the limitation period is 3 years?

[Jasper1965]

 

So if it is an assignement of rights regarding a personal injury claim the limitation period is 3 years?

 

Yes and I can find no lawful reason why the 3 years should be automatically extended. There are arguments for it being extended under sec 33 but on a case by case basis.

 

If the rights are assigned then this is not a subrogated claim (impossible as explained earlier).

 

Without sight of the deed of assignment we can only speculate what has and hasn't been assigned or the lawfulness of any assignment.

[Bazooka Boo]

I still stand by what I have said, they have 3 years in which to bring a PI case, they have done so, MIB paid out, but have failed to contact you within 6 years in order to recover what they have coughed up, therefore it is SB.

[nicklea]

bazooka boo,

 

Excuse me, I'm writing thsi after a couple of glasses of wine so it might not be too coherent. When you say that they have brought a PI case within 3 years, actually they haven't brought a court case - a legal claim - within that time. They have made a claim to the MIB, as I understand it this is not the same thing as making a claim in court.

 

The MIB have made some investigations and believe that there was no valid insurance in place at the time of the accident and, given the circumstances of the accidnet, believe that there is a valid claim and so have paid out.

 

There has been no court action and there has been no judgement. The MIB has just paid an amount of money to the claimant.

 

So no court claim has been brought within 3 years in any court regarding this claim.

 

The claimant, as part of the process of making a claim against the MIB, has to complete the following doument of assignment:-

 

http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0F0B21A2-EE08-4A01-979D-C3C7B81F7B08/532/MicrosoftWordCondAssignTemplatev10_website_1.pdf

 

This gives the MIB the right to pursue the other party to recover any money that was paid out by the MIB.

 

So, there has been no court claim at all, the MIB merely decides of it's own accord to pay out to the claimant.

 

However, having said this there are lots of court cases where the MIB does try to dispute liability and avoid paying out to claimants- no big surprise there.

 

So, to get back to the case in hand, the rights of the injured party have been assigned to the MIB, but under the nemo dat principle you cannot assign any right greater than or different than you actually possess. The claimant only has the right to bring a cliam within 3 years for a PI case so that means that the MIB also only have the right to bring a court claim within that same 3 year period from when the right to action arose ie the date of the accident.

 

Also, I am not too sure who the claimant is. If it is CCM, not MIB, thenm as long as there was no written contact with them prior to the issue of proceedings then any contact is plausibly deniable and you have an extra defence under the Law of Propety Act.