MIB County court claim please help

[Bazzerj]

Hi there I have a problem and I hope you guys can help,

 

In 2005 (26/4/05) I was involved in a car accident, the accident was not my fault, but not being insured at the time definately was. I totally regret the fact that I used the car when I shouldn't have, and I was duly punished with a fine and 6 points.

 

I always denied the accident was my fault, but obviously the MIB thought differently and must have paid out for the other party. His car was an old astra worth under £1000, the one letter i received a while later claimed I owed £2700+ I unfortunately don't have this letter anymore so I can't say whether or not it mentioned personal injury or not. Either way this was the last I heard about this debt until early April this year.

 

I stupidly ignored the 2 letters I received after including the one which said Court Action will follow shortly. Today I recieved a Claim form from Northampton CC where it says Hegarty LLP acting on behalf of MIB are claiming for 4000+! this is the original amount plus interest plus fees.

 

I have searched this website since around 5pm today and have found many people in the same situation, but I haven't found anything where a defence was entered and was successful. Am I right in saying this debt is Statute Barred with it being over 6 years since the dagte they are claiming from. I am confused as what to do next though if this is the case. Can I simply reference the 1980 Limitations act in the defence part of the form (or even do it online as the form suggests) or do I need to do more?

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

[Jasper1965]

Would you be able to type out the particulars of the claim please? this will help us establish exactly what they are claiming and on what grounds.

[Bazzerj]

Hi Jasper thanks for responding here you go:

 

The claimant is the National Guarantee Fund which provides compensation to the victims of uninsured negligent drivers. The Claiment paid compensation and/or costs to the victim(s) of the defendant's negligence whilst driving motor vehicle registration number XXXXXX on the 26/4/05 without statutory insurance cover as required by the Road Traffic Act 1988. The victim(s) have since assigned their cause of action to the Claimant and notice of such assignment has been served upon the defendant. The Claimant complied with Section III and IV and Annex B of the PD Pre-Action Conduct. And the Claimant Caimes: MIB Uninsured Driver Subrogated Claim Reference number xxxxxxxx balance of 2,744.34 as of 26/4/05.

Interest under s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from the Accident Date to 6/5/11 of 1,323.90 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.60 AND Costs.

 

Hope that helps

[Jasper1965]

perfect thank you.

 

It's important that you acknowledge service within time as this will give you a further fourteen days during which to file your defence.

 

Few points raised by these POC's.......

 

 

Were you convicted for negligence or in any other way found to be liable for the accident or did you ever admit to anyone it was your fault?

Did you ever complete a form and/or written oral interview with MIB whereby you assigned them authority to deal with this and admit negligence on your behalf?

Did you ever dispute negligence, provide evidence or statements etc to MIB?

 

It is also clearly statute barred by their own admission notwithstanding that they state compensation/costs without clarifying what these sums were paid for ie. were they for damage to property (6 years) or damage to person (3 years).

[Jasper1965]

Actually I'll leave that last post up for now but just re-reading the POC's (carefully this time ) I notice that this differs from the attempted recovery claims we have been seeing quite a few of in so far as the MIB are acting directly for "the victim". (In the other cases the MIB step into the malfeasors shoes, admit liability, payout and then years later tried to screww the payout and their fees out the malfeasor)

 

Essentially this is just a subrogated claim brought by the victims "insurer" who just happens to be the NGF as obviously the victim chose not to claim from their own insurer or more likely their insurers chose to claim from the fund rather than foot the bill themselves.

 

stat barred is the defence but IMO it is important that the Court is made aware that any criminal prosecution arising from the incident did not concern liability for the accident simply the fact that you were uninsured and that it would now be inequitable for the Courts to attempt to ascertain liability for the accident itself as for example your records have subsequently been destroyed and witnesses are no longer available to you.

They have averred negligence on your part, you must put them to strict proof that the damages claimed were raised as a result of YOUR negligence.

[Bazzerj]

The only thing I remember is a chap coming to my house to ask me about the accident, I don't even remember if he was from the MIB or the other guys insurance co I showed him exactly what happened on this little map he had, never did I admit that I caused the accident or was negligent. I didn't sign to say it was my fault, I honestly don't remember much more than that. I know I didn't hear anything for ages, until I was deemed to be at fault, and slapped with this bill.

[Bazzerj]

Thank you so much for your help Jasper. Could you tell me (in idiot proof terms) exactly what I need to do next then? Could I not submit the defence straight away? Or do I need to aknowledge service first? I'm a bit confused about this.

[Jasper1965]

I would suggest that you simply acknowledge the claim for the moment as this will then give us the maximum amount of time possible to research, discuss and then come up with a defence. The MIb seem to have become very active in these subrogated claims recently so we should get a fair bit of knowledgeable input here.

 

As I see it the limitation Act 1980 is the first line of defence, but you also have a very strong argument imo in so far as the MIB have judged you liable themselves and paid out despite you denying liability at all times.

It is not for the MIB to make this decision on liability unilaterally, where liability is contested then the question should be decided by a court in a scenario where all parties are able to present their version of facts.

 

Should imagine your defence will contain key points along the lines of:

 

Averrment that the claimants right to action is barred by the statute of limitations.

Averrment that it would be inequitable for the court to make a sec 33 exception.

Denial of negligence with statement to effect that negligence for the accident was always denied by youself and the claimant was aware of this during their initial investigation back in 2005.

Averrment that the MIB are not lawfully able to make a judgment on liability in contested cases and that such cases should be subjected to a judicial decision on liability.

Averrment that the MIB simply conducted an oral interview with you and that you were at no other time invited to present your evidence or witnesses in support of your denial of liability.

Demand that the MIB is put to strict proof that the damages claimed were caused by your negligence.

Averrment that any criminal action brought against you was simply on the basis that you were uninsured and no criminal charges were brought against you which involved or inferred liability for the accident.

Contest of the value of damages awarded by the MIB (ie old car worth few hundred pounds)

Averrment that the claiomant has failed to identify the type of damages claimed whether personal injury or property.

 

There may be more.

 

 

Also a Part 18 CPR request is in order.

 

You need to write directly to the MIB and ask them questions such as:

 

Did the MIB ever invite the defendant to admit or deny liability for the accident.

Was the defendant ever interviewed by the MIB concerning this accident

If interviewed did the defendant deny liability in any part for the accident.

What evidence to ascertain liability was sought from the victim

What evidence to ascertain liability was sought from the defendant

Which court made the decision on liability.

Was the defendant made aware of any hearing to ascertain liability

When was the decision on liability made

When was the defendant notified that they were being held liable.

What contact has the claimant made with the defendant since the original claim was made

What evidence is the claimant going to rely upon to prove the defenants liabilty to these damages

 

 

Hopefully other caggers will pitch in with some more and better ideas, this should set the ball rolling for you though.

[Ganymede]

Hi there I have a problem and I hope you guys can help,

 

In 2005 (26/4/05) I was involved in a car accident, the accident was not my fault, but not being insured at the time definately was. I totally regret the fact that I used the car when I shouldn't have, and I was duly punished with a fine and 6 points.

 

I always denied the accident was my fault, but obviously the MIB thought differently and must have paid out for the other party. His car was an old astra worth under £1000, the one letter i received a while later claimed I owed £2700+ I unfortunately don't have this letter anymore so I can't say whether or not it mentioned personal injury or not. Either way this was the last I heard about this debt until early April this year.

 

I stupidly ignored the 2 letters I received after including the one which said Court Action will follow shortly. Today I recieved a Claim form from Northampton CC where it says Hegarty LLP acting on behalf of MIB are claiming for 4000+! this is the original amount plus interest plus fees.

 

I have searched this website since around 5pm today and have found many people in the same situation, but I haven't found anything where a defence was entered and was successful. Am I right in saying this debt is Statute Barred with it being over 6 years since the dagte they are claiming from. I am confused as what to do next though if this is the case. Can I simply reference the 1980 Limitations act in the defence part of the form (or even do it online as the form suggests) or do I need to do more?

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

I might have missed it but what is the issue date on the Claim Form?

[Bazzerj]

Sorry for late reply just got back from work. The issue date is the 5th May. So I have until the 24th to aknowledge this I think. If I aknowledge now will the extra 14 days be added on to this date? Or will it run from when they recieve my response?

[Bazzerj]

One other thing I forgot to mention if it makes any difference - Both my first and surname's are spelt incorrectly on the claim form.

[Jasper1965]

Sorry for late reply just got back from work. The issue date is the 5th May. So I have until the 24th to aknowledge this I think. If I aknowledge now will the extra 14 days be added on to this date? Or will it run from when they recieve my response?

 

Great the 5th of May issue date confirms it to be SB'ed, I think Ganymede was seeking confirmation that it hadn't been lying around for a week or two with an earlieer date as it's only just SB'ed. If the issuing Court was Northampton (MCOL) there is no argument otherwise they would have to prove the Court sat on the paperwork for 10 days so just for total peace of mind can you confirm the issuing court please?

The 14 days is added on to your original period giving you 28 days plus time for service.

 

By ignoring their letters it's my opinion that you have led MIB to believe that you are a soft target for a default judgment, you need to hit them hard and you need to write to the OFT & FOS & ABI and complain that they have issued Court proceedings on a statute barred disputed alleged debt despite there having never been an admission or finding of your liability.

 

The name thing is de minimis but you could be quite harsh and still introduce it into your defence as proof of the claimants lack of fact and research.

[Ganymede]

Great the 5th of May issue date confirms it to be SB'ed, I think Ganymede was seeking confirmation that it hadn't been lying around for a week or two with an earlieer date as it's only just SB'ed. If the issuing Court was Northampton (MCOL) there is no argument otherwise they would have to prove the Court sat on the paperwork for 10 days so just for total peace of mind can you confirm the issuing court please?

The 14 days is added on to your original period giving you 28 days plus time for service.

 

By ignoring their letters it's my opinion that you have led MIB to believe that you are a soft target for a default judgment, you need to hit them hard and you need to write to the OFT & FOS & ABI and complain that they have issued Court proceedings on a statute barred disputed alleged debt despite there having never been an admission or finding of your liability.

 

The name thing is de minimis but you could be quite harsh and still introduce it into your defence as proof of the claimants lack of fact and research.

 

 

 

You read my mind!

 

I was indeed checking that the debt is SB which we no know it is.

[Bazzerj]

Great the 5th of May issue date confirms it to be SB'ed, I think Ganymede was seeking confirmation that it hadn't been lying around for a week or two with an earlieer date as it's only just SB'ed. If the issuing Court was Northampton (MCOL) there is no argument otherwise they would have to prove the Court sat on the paperwork for 10 days so just for total peace of mind can you confirm the issuing court please?

The 14 days is added on to your original period giving you 28 days plus time for service.

 

By ignoring their letters it's my opinion that you have led MIB to believe that you are a soft target for a default judgment, you need to hit them hard and you need to write to the OFT & FOS & ABI and complain that they have issued Court proceedings on a statute barred disputed alleged debt despite there having never been an admission or finding of your liability.

 

The name thing is de minimis but you could be quite harsh and still introduce it into your defence as proof of the claimants lack of fact and research.

 

Hi, once again thanks for your replies. The issuing court is Northampton (CCBC). I actually got the date of issue wrong its the 6th of May not the 5th, so even further over the 6 years

[Jasper1965]

Great 6th of May bulk centre/MCOL job. No chance of it not being SB'ed then.

 

Guess the next question is do you just want to make this go away or are you prepared to give them a legal kicking?

[Bazzerj]

Great 6th of May bulk centre/MCOL job. No chance of it not being SB'ed then.

 

Guess the next question is do you just want to make this go away or are you prepared to give them a legal kicking?

 

What with all the help I've gotten from you guys so far, and the fact that this is not a one-off case I would certainly be prepared to complain to the relevant places, as it is outrageous that they can try this. I would obviously like to remove the stress of this from my life as quick as possible though.

 

Once I have aknowledged service - how do I proceed?

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Don't be too sure it's statute barred. The cause of action might only accrue on the date the MIB paid out, not on the date of the accident.

 

I notice the claim does not particularise how the amount is arrived at. You need full particulars of that.

[Bazzerj]

And the Claimant Caimes: MIB Uninsured Driver Subrogated Claim Reference number xxxxxxxx balance of 2,744.34 as of 26/4/05.

 

Surely this statement proves they are claiming from the date of the accident.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Or it proves that the Particulars of Claim are badly drafted. The MIB didn't pay out on that date. If it was the other side suing you, then definitely the date of the accident is when time starts running. But the MIB can't have a claim against you until they pay out, so it might be that that is when time starts (whatever the pleading says). I could be wrong though.

[Jasper1965]

This is a subrogated claim meaning the claimant (MIB) has stepped into the shoes of the victim thus assuming the victims rights and remedies..

MIB cannot assume any right greater than or other than those afforded to the subrogator (nemo dat quod non habet).

The subrogator had the right to pursue for remedy with effect from 25th 04 2005, this is the right that was assigned to the MIB.

The MIB cannot extend the period of limitation by paying out themselves some time possibly years after the cause of action has accrued. MIB had no rights of their own in the matter, they were not involved in the accident, any payment they have made will have been subject to the victim assigning their rights of remedy across to the MIB and it is these rights the rights of the original victim which have been used to bring proceedings.

Sadly for MIB the victims rights expired six years after the incident and since the claim was issued after the expiry of the limitation period the claim is fairly and squarely statute barred.

 

I don't however believe that just averring it to be SB'ed is sufficient to enter as a defence with peace of mind that the judge will take it at face value. It is far better to lead the judge gently through the process explaining why it is statute barred in your pleadings just in case the claimants legal team do try to convince the judge that the limitation period only began upon payout.

Get the facts pleaded on paper, don't expect the judge to know or offer help but half expect the judge to be led by the oppos expensive barrister and you should be okay.

 

The limitation period cannot be extended upon subrogation or assignment, imagine the chaos and excitement in the DCA industry if they learned that a nearly SB'ed debt could be sold to another DCA who would then benefit from restarting the limitation period all over again by virtue of them having made a payment for the account?

Edited May 14, 2011 by Jasper1965

[Jasper1965]

Surely this statement proves they are claiming from the date of the accident.

 

Yes it does especially as they are claiming interest from that date.

[Bazzerj]

Yes it does especially as they are claiming interest from that date.

 

 

Just a quick update, had a problem with my internet over the weekend. I have now aknowledged service.

How do I proceed?

[Bazzerj]

Hi guys, I am a bit confused as to what to do next? Do I search on here and try to draft my defence, or do I send the part 18 CPR request to the MIB or both.?

 

I'm sorry to push, i just want this over and done with.

[Bazzerj]

Just a quick update, I sent the MIB an email similar to one I found in the other MIB thread in this forum (the 11-page one) basically stating that I was never given opportunity to defend myself and that the debt is now more than 6 years old etc. I sent this last friday and received the following reply today:

 

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your recent email. Your query has been passed to the Recovery Department by the Customer Services.

We can confirm that this claim is legitimate and you in fact discussed this with a claims handler in August 2005.

In March 2006 Brownswords investigators contacted you and you advised you did not have insurance, you also advised that you still disputed liability as per your conversation in 2005, so the handler reviewed the accident location. She found that as there were no road markings the road should have been treated as a roundabout and you should have given way to the claimant, which means that you were 100% liable, the handler wrote a letter to you confirming this to which there was no reply.

The claim was paid and the last payment was in June 2007 which is when the debt was formed. Our file was then handled by the recovery department and sent to our recovery agents Experto Credite in June 2007. It was left to them to follow their recovery procedure and contact you. The file is now out with our recovery agents IND because the debt is still outstanding.

Please contact IND as soon as possible on 08715 994451 as they are dealing with the file on our behalf. Any future correspondence should be directed to them.

Regards

MIB Recovery Department

Tel. 01908 821994

 

This is basically saying the complete opposite to what actually happened, the person I had the accident with has lied and they have simply taken their word for it. I don't remember any form being sent out in 2007 either. I am fuming. Am I right in thinking though that as the claim form is claiming monies owed from the date of the accident including the interest added, that the fact that they are saying the debt is from 2007 is irrelevant?

 

I have replied with Jaspers 'I find your latest response to my averrments highly unsatisfactory" letter also from the above referenced thread.

 

I now have 14 days from tomorrow until I have to issue a defence. What else can I do?

[wotsy]

I've complained about mib to everyone, more than once, but I've not heard anything, typical.

The only thing I can suggest is try e-mailing them again (feedback@mib.org.uk) but this time try addressing it to Chris Pugsley, he's the customer service manager, maybe send him a letter through the post as well.

Good luck, I know what you're going through.