Cause of action/statute barred

[Peterbard]

 

If there is a cause of action for example a contractual breach then the limitations period starts from that point even if the creditor needs to follow a process before starting said action.

 

An example...if a payment is missed and the contract allows for time to make that right such as 30 days then that would be the time the clock starts regardless of a need to issue a DN etc.

 

Sorry Fletch i seem to have missed your point here.

 

Yes indeed it seems that a contractual term can delay the cause of action , if nothing else this was established in Hart, after all the reason for the success of the appeal was the fact that a term in the contract did just that.

[charharp]

Dodge I speak on behalf of myself, the other posters on this thread and the site team when I say you are so wrong it's embarrassing. Google Dunning-Kruger effect, that is your problem.

[Peterbard]

Dodge I speak on behalf of myself, the other posters on this thread and the site team when I say you are so wrong it's embarrassing. Google Dunning-Kruger effect, that is your problem.

 

Sorry C but if you have an argument please feel free to make it, I am sure that whatever it is it has already been covered, but I do not mind going over it again for you, actually many of the the team agree with me, although what relevance that may have eludes me.

Remembering also that it is supported by other authority.

[charharp]

Here's a nice little excerpt from a psychologist on the issue for you Dodge

 

"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."

[Peterbard]

the answer to this is that it really does depend.

 

Let's go back to the case of Reeves v Butcher [1891] 2 QB 509

- 'It has always been held that the statute runs from the earliest time at which an action can be brought'.

 

s38(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 defines 'action' as 'any proceedings in a court of law'.

 

What's important to remember that the cause of action is the very first point in which a creditor can sue.

 

- So for CCA regulated debts, like loans and credit cards, that is unlikely to be the point where payments stop.

 

Now, it always used to be the case that the cause of action would begin when a creditor could first sue as per the terms of the contract

- so typically that may mean a number of missed payments, a default and potentially a termination notice.

 

The OFT thought so too, they stated that the default notice requirement was simply a 'procedural bar'.

 

Of course, things have been shaked up a little due to the BMW v Hart case where,

- on the face of it,

- the cause of action may be able to be delayed until the termination notice has been served.

 

In short,

could a creditor really delay this until a point in time of their choice?

 

I'm not so sure

- but I would imagine this case will polarise opinion massively.

And people may need to get their distinguishing caps on.

 

I understand for a start that BMW v Hart was all to do with an unregulated HP agreement.

 

I think it's also important to bear in mind that in some cases the cause of action will start once the demand for payment is first made.

 

For example - some overdrafts could run and run for years until the bank calls it in - It's at that point that the six years will begin..

 

Not all debts are going to fall under section 5, some that we often find on here may fall under s6.

 

A member of the "site team" with whom I am in complete agreement(almost)

[Peterbard]

Here's a nice little excerpt from a psychologist on the issue for you Dodge

 

"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."

 

Yes nice quote.

Anyway back to the issue of the thread.

 

I mean if you want to talk about me and my shortcomings please start a thread entitled "what I think is wrong with Dodge" I will contribute, ///love talking about myself.

However as a service to the OP we should really discuss the issues the thread was intended for. You think?

[charharp]

Something g else you quoted a whole back had the judge saying limitations runs from the breach not when the creditor decides to take action because they would be able to suspend limitations indefinitely.

 

Most of what sequenci has said there goes against your opinion. Your posts should be deleted people are on help for help not to be dragged into some fantasy land where you are on a mission to prove something that isn't there.

[Peterbard]

Something g else you quoted a whole back had the judge saying limitations runs from the breach not when the creditor decides to take action because they would be able to suspend limitations indefinitely.

 

Most of what sequenci has said there goes against your opinion. Your posts should be deleted people are on help for help not to be dragged into some fantasy land where you are on a mission to prove something that isn't there.

 

If you could just leave out the insults. Which bits of what Sequencty says here do you think i dissagree with?

[charharp]

All of it. Who's to say sequenci is right it's just his opinion.

[Peterbard]

All of it. Who's to say sequenci is right it's just his opinion.

 

the thing is that our opinion is supported by authority yours is not(as far as I can see), if I am, wrong you will have to show a logical argument, no getting around it

[silverfox1961]

I see my warning yesterday has been completely ignored so for the moment I am going to close this thread while I discuss this issue with the site team.

 

This argumentative stance cannot continue.

 

I would urge you NOT to start another thread just yet as it is likely that will also get into insult territory.

 

If you wish to complain, you are more than welcome to do so.