Yes Car Credit PPI REclaim *** Resolved***

[ukdarrenfan]

Just a quickie. If I am going to try for a settlement when should I get the letter to them by and how long should I give them to decide on whether to accept it?

[steampowered]

I don't think it matters to be honest. You might as well do the letter whenever you are ready. I don't think there is any point in giving a very long time for them to decide, 21 days would probably be reasonable. I use language along the lines of "This offer shall remain open for acceptance for a period of 21 days, after which it shall lapse".

[ukdarrenfan]

Well the next hearing is going to be on the 20th February, so I suppose the quicker we do it the better then.

[ukdarrenfan]

Oh well, a 7 page witness statement and 73 pages of 'evidence' later I'm ready to send stuff to the court. I've tried to show by everything that I've sent them how DAFS have lied all along - and lied so well that we couldn't have known we had been mis-sold. I've sent everything we had to show that we weren't told the insurances were optional and that as they had concealed the facts from us so well we couldn't have known any earlier than we did.

 

I really hope that the Judge sees how much they lied to us. I've tried to point out all the things that made it so easy to remember the day, as he did say that he found it hard to believe that we could remember it so well. Believe me, the things we remember about that day are entirely because of certain things that happened. It makes it pretty easy to remember almost everything about it. I have checked, double checked and triple checked and I cannot see one single thing on the paperwork we have that mentions these insurances being optional.

[ukdarrenfan]

Now everything is ready to send I am having a major panic this morning. I have convinced myself that everything is hopeless, that the judge will turn round and be really annoyed because we haven't proved what he asked us to; I'm not sleeping properly as it wakes me up in the night.

 

I really need some reassurance. I take some kind of hope from the fact that the judge didn't just dismiss the whole thing last time and the fact that he has allowed 2 hours this time. Surely that must mean he thinks we have some kind of case or why allow that long?

 

One thing I really need to know is about the Skeleton argument that has to be filed next month. What do they mean by 'with copies of any relevant Statutory Material and authorities'?

 

Oh and by the way - if anybody from DAFS should be checking up on this thread-you might be wearing me down but we're not beaten yet. We'll be at Court and ready to fight our corner no matter what. It's our last chance so we'll throw everything at you that we have and show how much you have lied.

[steampowered]

Hi, I've never been great at the whole reassurance thing, but I think you are right that the judge would have simply dismissed the whole thing at the last hearing if he thought it was hopeless. I'm sorry to hear that you are finding the process so stressful. There is no getting around the fact that going to court is stressful experience for non-legally qualified people, especially when you are confronted with a technical legal issue such as dealing with The Limitation Act 1980.

 

I think the key thing is to make sure you are focussed on the key issue for this hearing, which I understand to be an application for summary judgment on the basis of the allegation that your claim is time barred. You need to really focus on arguing why you meet the criteria for s32. The process is intimidating but the legal issue is not actually that complicated and you clearly understand it so don't put yourself down. Don't get too distracted by the other stuff and don't focus too much on making allegations about lies or making allegations about commission.

 

When they say "copies of relevant statutory material and authorities", this means copies of any statutes and case law you want to refer to in your witness statement or skeleton argument. The statutory material is s32 of the Limitation Act. I don't think you need to be using any case law.

 

If you want to make a 'without prejudice' offer you should do it quickly. Do it before the other side has to incur legal costs getting their lawyers to prepare for the hearing. It should just be a very simple letter along the lines of 'I believe I have a strong case and am fully prepared to see this case through until trial. However in order to avoid further costs and stress for all parties I am willing to settle my claim for xxx on the basis that each party bears their own costs. This offer shall remain open until xxx. I look forward to hearing from you. In the event that you decline this offer I will of course draw it to the attention of the court on the issue of costs.'

[ukdarrenfan]

Thanks.

 

I am well aware that this is our last chance so I really want to get it right.

 

Our pack of evidence is huge, purely because we need to show that they lied about the insurances by making us think we had to have them.

 

As it is a kind of 'he said, she said' kind of thing we need some way to show that we didn't know.

 

I hope we have managed to do that by providing everything that we have-and nothing shows them as optional at all.

 

As for the reasonable diligence bit, that's a lot harder,

but we can only state that as the facts were deliberately concealed from us

we had no way of knowing that we were being lied to.

 

Yes, there was information around at the time, but you had to know where to look.

 

It wasn't a big scandal in the papers or on tv.

 

You could only look for it if you knew what to look for in the first place.

 

To do that you had to be aware that you were mis-sold in the first place.

 

We've also spent time explaining everything that we remember about the day to prove to the judge

that it is possible to remember something that happened all those years ago.

 

Oh well, nothing I can do now apart from sort this letter out.

 

I will leave them to make their decision up until the day before the hearing and no later.

 

Thanks for your help.

[ukdarrenfan]

Should this be treated as a Part 36 offer and headed as such? Or is this not applicable in the Small Claims Court?

[steampowered]

Not applicable in small claims

[ukdarrenfan]

Thank you

[Mike_hawk]

I'm struggling to come up with anything useful for your skel, not aware of any authorities on the subject of reasonable diligence in limitation cases. Probably plenty of first instance cases which have swung each way depending on the facts of the case.

 

Perhaps Ladd v Marshall or Lifely v Lifely may provide a little assistance, not exactly what you're looking for but should provide some useful insight in the matter of reasonable diligence/ concealment and how the court decided its effect on re-opening cases on appeal.

[ukdarrenfan]

Oh if only the judge could see just how many views this thread has had so far. Over 23,000! That would make him realise just how many people are interested in this company...

[ukdarrenfan]

Hmmm. That doesn't look like good news.

 

Just had an e-mail from Irwin Mitchell.

 

Apparently there has been a change of solicitor today from Ascent Legal to Irwin Mitchell and they want an urgent phone call.

 

Am still awaiting a call back, but if they have changed solicitor it doesn't look like they are going to accept the offer of settlement.

 

Why would they change solicitor at such a late stage?

[AndyOrch]

Irwin Mitchell are quite approachable and reasonable...maybe they do want to come to some agreement.

 

Andy

[ukdarrenfan]

Irwin Mitchell are quite approachable and reasonable...maybe they do want to come to some agreement.

 

Andy

 

I do hope so. I can't understand why they have changed at such a late stage though. We gave them until tomorrow to accept or refuse the settlement so perhaps that's why they've e-mailed the change across and want an urgent phone call. I wish they'd hurry up and get back to me...I'm nervous.....

[Andybars]

Ascent Legal & Irwin Mitchell are part of the same group. As I understand it Ascent deal with collections and also some bulk processing e.g taking statements. Irwin Mitchell would deal when "proper legal work" is involved. - perhaps as Andy notes above this could be a positive step

[ukdarrenfan]

The suspense is killing me. He rang, but obviously will only speak to my husband. I'm waiting for him to let me know the outcome hopefully soon. I'm so nervous,

[pears23]

Any news or did you end up going to court?

[Steveyg_uk]

How did it go, as I am interested as well. I to have to deal with YCC and just wondering wether I should or not?

[AndyOrch]

It does not look like we will be getting an update...shame after all the assistance given by Caggers.

[IdaInFife]

well the OP viewed the thread today so quite surprised they would feel inclined not to update

[caro]

I wonder if they settled and agreed to confidentiality.

[Mike_hawk]

I wonder if they settled and agreed to confidentiality.

 

I think that's a distinct possibility