Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bank the cheque.  No doubt it will bounce - but you never know. When it bounces - that is when you are meant to access their website link and enter your personal details - but of course - DON'T.
    • Wayne Ting, chief executive of e-scooter firm Lime, says there's room for improvement. View the full article
    • If you are absolutely certain* that you were parked OK, write a letter of complaint to the Headteacher and copy in the Chair of the school governors.   If you or the car were identifiable in any way from the photo (eg visible registration number, driver's face etc) I would very politely write that you resent the untrue suggestion that you had parked/had stopped/were waiting in a way that contravened any traffic regulations, and that you are sure that the school will understand that you would like an apology and a correction to be printed in the next newsletter.  (You can also clearly state that you were identifiable from the photo because other parents have mentioned it to you).   See if that works.   You don't want to go to court for defamation as you'll need access to about £10k in fees before you get out of bed.  You just want an apology and a correction.  If what you've told us is accurate, I don't see any reasonable school failing to say sorry.     *My wife is a former school governor and my experience listening to her is that very very few parents actually understand the meaning of the no stopping/no waiting signs and road markings outside schools.  Don't complain unless you are sure you weren't stopped where you shouldn't have been.
    • And they haven't offered a speed awareness course either?  (Have you done one in the last three years or is this in Scotland?)   And is one of the notices for 34 in a 30?  As Man in the Middle says, that ought to be below the level at which they take action.   (And sorry - I don't want to appear preachy - but...  there don't have to be any warnings or signs or lines on the road to advise you of the presence of speed cameras.  If you get away with an exceptional hardship argument you will need to stick to speed limits in future - whether you know there are cameras there or not.  NB Don't know if this applies to you, but most 30 mph limits are restricted roads with a system of streetlighting and don't even need speed limit signs - you are assumed to know this from the Highway Code).
    • It's up to you if you want to pay £300 you don't owe plus whatever Unicorn Food Tax with no basis in law whatsoever that they will have made up in the Letter Before Claim.   We'd prefer you didn't.   But you have received a LBC so it's make your mind up time.   So please    - post up photos of the signage in the dark that you'll have taken two months ago (post 14)    - post up details of planning permission for their signs you'll have found out after you got onto the council, again two months ago (again post 14)    - also let us know if you agree with Brassnecked's excellent letter or if you'd like to tweak bits depending on what you've found out    - upload the LBC.  Some of them are appallingly drafted and invariably contain Unicorn Food Tax which is all useful extra ammo    - also, where are you living now (post 35) and are you comfortable with legal communications arriving at your parents'?   If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page, you will see 275 times these cheats have been seen off with their tails between their legs (and all had the same "well known legal companies" (ho! ho!) on hand).  In reality 275 times is a massive underestimate, in all 275 cases there was a "moment of victory" IYSWIM where the PPC were thrashed in court or discontinued a claim or were called off by a supermarket chain, etc., etc.  There will have been at least that number again where they were told to Foxtrot Oscar and then crawled back under their stone.  They are eminently beatable but logically when you're in legal dispute you have to put some graft in to beat the other party.
  • Our picks

Limitation Act 1980 - overpaid wages from 2003 - can they get me?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3050 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

Someone I am helping is being taken to court by a party claiming an alleged overpayment of wages relating to payments made to her that began in early 2003.

 

These payments varied in the first year but remained a fixed amount since 2003 until the middle of 2010 when their employer noticed the payment.

The former employer admitted that the employee had not caused these payments to be made in any way.

 

Several times, it was pointed out to the employer that payments made six years prior to their discovery were certainly statute barred.

 

They tried quoting the part of the Limitations Act that allows the clock to start from "the discovery of the mistake"

but I pointed out to them that could only be the case if the mistake could not have been found, with reasonable diligence, earlier. They have ignored this.

 

The employer are in possession of no more facts than they had when the payments were made.

The former employee has not accepted that this debt is owed.

In one communication, it was actually asked why this question was being ignored as though it did not exist.

 

In 2011, Ascent are pursuing every single payment.

Irwin Mitchell are pursuing the payment.

They were advised that the whole sum could not be pursued as this included payments that were made in 2003.

 

This year, the party, took her to court and have unbelievably refuted the Statute Barred defence with their defence that they did not discover the mistake(s) until 2010

and claimed that stopped the claim being Statute Barred.

 

They have never claimed that the mistake(s) could not have been found with reasonable diligence at the times when the payments were made.

 

Although, the individual payments have been supplied, the actual net payments made to her have never been broken down.

Only the total net payment has been requested.

 

It gets better, the party who are pursuing the debt are... wait for it ... the one and only Ministry of Justice.

 

There are also other issues that can be had with their claim but I am interested to know about the time barred element of this situation.

 

Am I out of perspective by stating this situations is BONKERS?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you take this the same way as lets say PPI, it IS when the 'mistake' is discovered.

but you have to prove that you had no other way to know it was - in the PPI situation, there is clear evidence

through publicity this is so.

 

in this case it is more difficult for them i fear, as you point out, they had staff in place and PAID

to do their job, they failed, why should the person be responsible for their staff/dept lacking ,

 

just remember IR are a solicitor for hire & ascent are a DCA - me thinks they are chancing their arm.

 

i'll move this to the employment forum.

 

i think it is statute barred

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do have the right to recover overpayments, whether it's their mistake or not. dx 100 is quite right, the 6 years starts from the date the mistake was discovered. If you look on hte web, there are plenty of cases to show that they will be entitled to recover. Not what you want to hear, but true.

I am a lawyer, but I am an academic lawyer. I do not practice as a barrister or solicitor. You should consult a practising Solicitor BEFORE taking any Court or other action

Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be a case for contesting this on unfairness due to the

length of time elapsed I believe this has been done in the past

in relation to overpayments by the MOD.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
They do have the right to recover overpayments, whether it's their mistake or not. dx 100 is quite right, the 6 years starts from the date the mistake was discovered. If you look on hte web, there are plenty of cases to show that they will be entitled to recover. Not what you want to hear, but true.

 

No, not what I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear chuckles.

 

Dx100uk is right in stating that the six years can start from the date the mistake is discovered

but,

as he also says but you omit, only if the mistake could not have been found earlier.

 

You have done what so many other parties have done;

perhaps you did it to amuse me.

 

I challenge you to find a SINGLE case on the web that shows that the claimant will be entitled to recover overpayments of wages made over six years

before merely because the employer had not found the mistake until within six years of the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no neither could i find any examples

i've moved this to the employment forum

 

i'm sure there is 'some other rules' that play a part here too.

 

 

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us please not let this thread which has meaningful input and good

purpose be derailed by ''arcane'' points of law DX is right I can find no

support for any entitlement that claimant has been successful in such

a case after 6 years.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. This is why I am very surprised they have gone to court for the whole lot, especially as it has been pointed out time and time again. I think rameses was just having a friendly joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly Joke? Not a joke really, friendly yes, but it's true I can find no cases of recovery after all this time

Perhaps people on this forum have the wrong impression of me. i was actually even once accused of being a DCA!! Those who know me would know what an insult that was. It's just that nowadays, I think DJs are finding less and less in favour of the debtors, and they are tending towards the creditor

Discussions on points of law may be interesting to some (i could argue them all day) but not helpful to others

I am a lawyer, but I am an academic lawyer. I do not practice as a barrister or solicitor. You should consult a practising Solicitor BEFORE taking any Court or other action

Link to post
Share on other sites

My feeling is that the instances of blatant debt avoidance on all levels

had over the past decade risen out of all proportion couple this with the

ever increasing levels of fraud in the finance industries has forced judges

to revert to the balance of probabilities when deciding if a debt is payable

or not.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...