Accident Exchange - letters after 9 years ??

[Ganymede]

To be honest if I'd known any of this before we had the car I'd never have touched it. The other driver was completely at fault, admitted liability and my wife was injured. We both needed good cars at the time for our work and it seemed like a good option.

 

Sheesh, what a right pain and I'm probably someone how would have been entitled to use such a service.

 

 

 

Your wife got a credit hire vehicle, not a courtesy car so was at the time personally liable for the charges. It's a common mistake that Claimants make.

 

So they're saying that the money only became due and owing from the date of the Court case?

[rdonalds]

No, they said on the phone that there had been a court case in 2008 (which I didn't know about) and therefore the breach in contract occurred then.

[unclebulgaria67]

No, they said on the phone that there had been a court case in 2008 (which I didn't know about) and therefore the breach in contract occurred then.

 

If AE want to use the court case as a reason for your agreement not being statute barred, then let them provide details of this court case. If the court case did not consider the credit hire or had no relevance to it or you, then the statute barring timeline goes back to the original agreement date.

 

I wouldn't feel too sorry for AE or feel any moral responsibility here, as the credit hire companies make plenty of money from their extreme hire car rates. AE should have been more efficient to ensure that they collected any monies due. To come after you this late in the day, is unfair.

[Ganymede]

If AE want to use the court case as a reason for your agreement not being statute barred, then let them provide details of this court case. If the court case did not consider the credit hire or had no relevance to it or you, then the statute barring timeline goes back to the original agreement date.

 

I wouldn't feel too sorry for AE or feel any moral responsibility here, as the credit hire companies make plenty of money from their extreme hire car rates. AE should have been more efficient to ensure that they collected any monies due. To come after you this late in the day, is unfair.

 

 

 

 

It's interesting though that if they are saying that the cause of action only came after the Court date. I wonder if, as it was a credit hire agreement, it wouldn't be payable until AE made a demand for payment?

 

Just thinking out loud...

[SuperVillain]

You've also then got the Consumer Credit Act issues depending on how old the agreement is.

[Ganymede]

I would just let them get the file and sue your former solicitor for professional negligence.

[unclebulgaria67]

I would just let them get the file and sue your former solicitor for professional negligence.

 

How could they sue the former Solicitor for professional negligence ? The Sols were acting for the injured policyholder in regard to a PI claim. Sols will just follow the instructions they are given by their client. I am not sure on what grounds AE could sue the Sols.

 

Me thinks this is just a fishing exercise by AE, who think the Sols were given instruction to pursue all uninsured losses and if this is the case, they can somehow sue the Solicitors. Or AE thinks the policyholder told the Sols not to pursue the hire car costs, as AE would themselves be pursuing these.

 

If I were the OP, I am not sure I would let AE have access to Sols files, which contain details of his wifes medical reports. AE are not really entitled to any access to the files.

[Ganymede]

If the solicitors had the hire invoice and simply forgot to include it in the court claim then they have been negligent.

[Ganymede]

The credit hire agreement is the client's responsibility (assuming for the sake of argument that the hire debt is not SB). They would still owe it and will have to bring the claim negligence themselves.

 

 

If it is SB then there is nothing to worry about.

[SuperVillain]

If the solicitors had the hire invoice and simply forgot to include it in the court claim then they have been negligent.

 

And the OP did state earlier that AE said they notified the solicitors about the credit hire claim but it wasn't included in proceedings...

[rdonalds]

Ok, they've come back and said that the cause of action is based on the date the terms of the contract were breached. They then say they found out in March 2008 court proceedings had been previously issued, and later advised in May 2008 this was issued without the hire charges in it. They've suggesting that this is what they regard as the breach of contract and so it runs from when they found out ?

 

Seems wrong to me, as anything I've ever dealt with before it runs from when something occurs, not when you kinda find out about it.

 

Think I'll just take it to our lawyers. We're using them to sue some lawyers for something else right now, so should be alright with this kind of thing ?

[SuperVillain]

If the cause of action is negligence then the pricipal of latent damage could apply so the cause of action would run from when the negligence was discovered. I think they have 3 years from the discovery or date when they ought to have discovered the negligence... And there's an absolute 15 year long stop on any claims.

[unclebulgaria67]

Yes speak to your lawyers. I can see what AE are saying. I suspect that the terms of your agreement allow for the fact that the hire charges will be claimed back from a liable third party and you must take any necessary action. You or the Solicitors then failed to take necessary action and therefore breached the terms of the contract.

 

This is beyond me. I think you would need to have details of the agreement you signed and details of these court proceedings. If AE issued a court claim, I think I would use statute barred defence and then it is up to AE to prove otherwise.