Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The revenue protection officer worked for a train operating company.  If you know which Train company it is, go to their website and look for their complaints process.  Then submit the complaint with full details and copies of the tickets.     
    • Why aren't you recording your calls?   Please monitor this thread for a fuller reply over the weekend    
    • Why I went back:   Eventually, after being detained too long against my will. I paid the higher fare due to threats of a fine and in effort to gain my right to freedom: I then went through the turn-styles and on my visit to the booking/box office(aka: the main ticket booth on the way out) The man said I had to go back to the turn-styles to get my refund as he said it was a different system.   I asked him to come with me. He said he could not, i asked him to hold my hand. (English term of phrase). I did not want him to actually hold my hand.   He understood that and refused as he was on shift.    That is why I had to go back. I made an account here to seek help for me and other passengers. The site admin of this forum constantly tried to pass blame onto me. for many days. I cant explain how stressful this has been after the stress of the incident.   Can you please help me?                
    • So ,  after sending a letter refusing to accept the refund that was offered i received a phone call yesterday and an email that sums up the conversation i had. I have copied this below.  Good morning Mr Thank you for your email received on 16 August 2019.I’m sorry you disagree with our calculations and felt that my colleague didn’t listen to you.  I understand you don’t want us to make any accountadjustment or accept our proposed solution, until we look at everything again for you.We’re committed to providing our customers with the highest quality services, so I’ll do all I can to help you and put this right.I’m pleased we had the opportunity to talk about your concerns and decide on the best way forward.  As we agreed, here’s a summary of the issues wetalked about:· You requested details of your metered bills and payments (I’ve attached these to this email).· You don’t want to accept the solution we offered, of billing you on our ‘assessed charge’ tariff.· You don’t want to accept the goodwill payment offered £220.00 and feel you could have built your extension 2 years earlier, if we hadn’t charged youtoo much. · The meter readings we billed you for include water used at 74 Scotchman Lane, because you have a shared supply pipe.· You’d like 50% of your water and sewerage volume charges refunding to resolve this.· You’d like interest on your overpayment calculated accurately and based on 8% (not the Bank of England base rate).· You spoke to our technician and you said he advised it would be easy to alter your private pipework, so a meter can be fitted just for your home.· You prefer to pay a metered charge.· I’ll look into the points you’ve raised, and I’ll do all I can to work towards an amicable solution with you.I’ve taken the first step and I’m pleased to confirm that we’ve arranged a meter survey to be carried out on 6 September 2019 (arriving between 10amand 12 noon).  This survey will be done by our service partner ‘Morrison Utilities’, and they can estimate what it will cost you to have the pipeworkaltered, so a meter can be fitted.  Once I have the results of their visit,I’ll give you a call so we can talk about our next step.After we reach a solution and agree how you’ll be billed, I’ll be happy to work out a new interest calculation for you.  We use the Bank of England baserate and this won’t be changed, but I’ll be happy to renegotiate a final settlement figure with you.  If we pay interest, this will be subject to current HMRCtaxation rules.I assure you, I’ll keep an eye on your account and update you on each step we take.  I’ll call you again by 13 September 2019 about our progress.In the meantime, if you’d like to talk to me, please call me on 01274 318452 and I’ll be happy to help.  If I’m not available you’ll be able to talk toa colleague or leave a message.Regards   Personally i am not happy with the email especially as I didnt mention that i would pay for any pipework to be altered. He did say to me on the phone that the pipes after the boundary are ours and therefore our responsibility. I did then point out that if this was the case then there is nothing to stop me cutting and capping the pipe after it enters my property.    I am now going to try work out what the refund with 8% interest is from the figures he has provided.
    • Looking at the thread Im guessing theyre SB?
  • Our picks

indebtnow

old Discontinued claim from 2009 - is this now Statute Barred?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1366 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

Hi all,

 

Apologies if this has been covered before, or if it's in the wrong section of the forum.

I have performed a search on here, but found nothing to categorically answer my quesiton.

 

With regards to a debt being statute barred, it seems that this occurs 6 years after the last cause of action on the debt.

 

Now I understand thr last cause of action to be either 30 days from the the last payment or written acknowledgement of the debt. Is that correct?

 

However, can other factors upset this process?

Such as what happens if a county court claim is issued, then later discontinued?

Or if a CCJ is granted, does this then restart the 6 year clock.

Or if interested and/or fees are added after the last payment, but before a default notice is issued?

 

Many thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a county court claim is issued then that stops the clock - if the claim is discontinued or dismissed then the clock restarts as though the claim hadn't been issued.

 

If this is a bog standard credit card debt or unsecured loan - then it is my understanding that you should add at least 2 months onto the first payment missed and start counting 6 years from then.

 

If a Judgment is awarded against you, before the SB clock hits the target date/time then that is it :(


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks citizenB.

 

So, just to sum up,

if a county court claim is issued,

say at 5 years 6 months from the cause of action,

then goes through all the processes and is discontinued or dismissed 6 months later,

does that mean there is still another 6 months from the date of the discontinuance/dismissal before it is Statute Barred or does it then automatically become SB at dismissal/discontinuance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, so the 6 years would still run from the last cause of action, just as it would have been if the claim hadn't been filed in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tn addition to the onfo supplied. I think it should be mentioned that. The SB period ceases on the issuance of the claim(commencement of proceedings).

 

Also if the debt was acknowledged within the defense procedure this in itself may restart the clock(section 29).

 

Also if the SB is not raised by the defendant within the proceedings the creditor is within his rights to enforce an action for the debt, irrespective of the SB.

 

Also section 35 of the SOL says that if a new action is brought then the sb date may run from the date of the proceedings (dependent on if the facts of the case differ)

 

I am no expert in court procedure, but I believe that it is possible to restart a case which has bee discontinued under CPR and with permission of the court, since this would be the same proceedings I would think that the SB date would be updated to the claim already issued.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m pretty sure there is case law that dispels this, where a litigant brought proceedings simply in an attempt to halt the SB clock. The claimant was not in a position to justify or follow through its claim so sought an adjournment, but the judge ruled the issuing of the claim an abuse of process and struck out the claim.

 

So any blatant attempt to stop the SB clock simply by issuing a claim when you don’t have any evidence to back your claim may backfire.

 

Just wish I could fined the bloomin’ case law...


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one DB ?

 

 

“In Barton Henderson Rasen v Merrett [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 540 Saville J said that it is an abuse of the court’s process to issue proceedings with no intention of taking the case any further. In contentious matters the courts exist for the purpose of determining claims. Therefore, starting a claim with no intention of pursuing it is not using the court’s processes for the purposes for which they were designed.”


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from Thomson Reuters Practical Law site:

 

The commencement of proceedings stops time running in respect of the particular cause of action on which the proceedings are based. For details on limitation generally and when a claim is brought for the purposes of limitation, see Practice note, Limitation periods: an overview and Drafting note, Standstill agreement: Effect of commencement of proceedings. However, bringing an action within the limitation period does not stop the limitation period from running generally. If an action is struck out or aborted before judgment is given, a fresh action can only be brought if there is a balance left of the limitation period.


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This one DB ?

 

That may be the one CB – thank you! Will look it up and bookmark it.


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this as well.

 

In Barton Henderson Rasen v Merrett [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 540 Saville J said that it is an abuse of the

court’s process to issue proceedings with no intention of taking the case any further. In

contentious matters the courts exist for the purpose of determining claims. Therefore, starting

a claim with no intention of pursuing it is not using the court’s processes for the purposes

for which they were designed. ‘Parking’ proceedings in an attempt to achieve a settlement

with other defendants justified striking out with indemnity costs in Sodeca SA v NE Investments

Inc. [2002] EWHC 1700 (QB), LTL 27/8/2002.

 


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, CB – you picked it up a couple of years ago in a Bryan Carter case, courtesy of pt2537.

 

In Barton Henderson Rasen v Merrett [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 540 Saville J said that it is an abuse of the

court’s process to issue proceedings with no intention of taking the case any further. In

contentious matters the courts exist for the purpose of determining claims. Therefore, starting

a claim with no intention of pursuing it is not using the court’s processes for the purposes

for which they were designed. ‘Parking’ proceedings in an attempt to achieve a settlement

with other defendants justified striking out with indemnity costs in Sodeca SA v NE Investments

Inc. [2002] EWHC 1700 (QB), LTL 27/8/2002.

 

(There is another example, relating to a property claim, that I still can’t find.)

 

In other words, a claimant cannot simply bring a claim, when they are not really ready, and just let it be stayed (‘parked’) with a view to applying to lifting the stay when they get their act together.

 

Also, as highlighted in the other quote I made above, it is the case that the SB clock stops with the issue of a claim, but if the case is withdrawn or struck out, the SB clock reverts to the original cause of action.

 

All depends on the intentions of the claimant and what they can prove. But they won’t usually be able to amend their PoC or introduce new elements to the claim after the SB period elapses, if they take forward a hastily-issued or vague claim.


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexton 36 refers to Laches or acquiescence, which is the practice of delaying the action in order to benefit the claimant.

 

I think the case was frawley vs niell

 

I would expect the COA rot revert if the case was withdrawn, or struck out but what is the situation if it is discontinued.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very interesting reading!

 

In my particular case Dodgeball, the case was discontinued by the claimant as they did not provide any evidence and probably didn't want to get a mouthful from the judge for starting a claim without any. In that instance, surely that is the same as withdrawing from the action?

 

If it did mean that the clock on SB had been paused whilst the action was taking place, but then discontinued by the claimant and does then revert back to the original cause of action, by my calculations that's means that it would be SB in my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tn addition to the onfo supplied. I think it should be mentioned that. The SB period ceases on the issuance of the claim(commencement of proceedings).

 

Also if the debt was acknowledged within the defense procedure this in itself may restart the clock(section 29).

 

Also if the SB is not raised by the defendant within the proceedings the creditor is within his rights to enforce an action for the debt, irrespective of the SB.

 

Also section 35 of the SOL says that if a new action is brought then the sb date may run from the date of the proceedings (dependent on if the facts of the case differ)

 

I am no expert in court procedure, but I believe that it is possible to restart a case which has bee discontinued under CPR and with permission of the court, since this would be the same proceedings I would think that the SB date would be updated to the claim already issued.

 

In my particular case, I didn't raise any SB issues as it wasn't SB when the claim was issued, although it is now, after the claim running through to the 11th hour, quite a few months in total, before being discontinued by the claimant. In addition, it was a defended claim, therefore nothing was acknowledged in the proceedings at any time.

 

From what I have read, they do need the court's permission to restart the case, and in doing so would have to go through all the same processes again from the beginning and the re-pay the fees. But as already mentioned, it would now be SB by my calculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been looking through some old paperwork that I kept from a few years ago, and

 

whilst not strictly as a consumer, but as a sole trader

 

I ran up a small debt (just a couple of hundred pounds) with a company who then took me to court

and as I didn't defend the claim, they obtained a default judgement.

 

What I didn't realise at the time,

is that the company in question wrote to me after they'd obtained the judgement a couple of times,

and in the second letter they threatened me with a Bankruptcy Order and mentioning the Insolvency Act 1986.

 

Now, this CCJ was ignored and never paid,

 

I don't want to go dragging up the past with this company,

 

but it would be interesting to know if that was legal,

 

threatening me with bankruptcy when the total monies owed were substantially less than £750?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my particular case, I didn't raise any SB issues as it wasn't SB when the claim was issued, although it is now, after the claim running through to the 11th hour, quite a few months in total, before being discontinued by the claimant. In addition, it was a defended claim, therefore nothing was acknowledged in the proceedings at any time.

 

From what I have read, they do need the court's permission to restart the case, and in doing so would have to go through all the same processes again from the beginning and the re-pay the fees. But as already mentioned, it would now be SB by my calculations.

 

You may well be right and as I said they do need the permission of the court, i merely raise the question of if this necessarily means that the cause of action reverts to the original date. If this is a new action on the same facts, then according to the legislation as I read it, it does not, it may be the case that it would depend on the individual circumstances of the case and as to why the proceedings was discontinued, but I am open to any other opinion on the matter and would be interested on other views or authority


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my particular case, I didn't raise any SB issues as it wasn't SB when the claim was issued, although it is now, after the claim running through to the 11th hour, quite a few months in total, before being discontinued by the claimant. In addition, it was a defended claim, therefore nothing was acknowledged in the proceedings at any time.

 

From what I have read, they do need the court's permission to restart the case, and in doing so would have to go through all the same processes again from the beginning and the re-pay the fees. But as already mentioned, it would now be SB by my calculations.

 

 

 

 

Practice Notes:

England and Wales:

 

 

A practice note which looks at the effect of limitations periods on amending and new claims in pending actions.

 

 

Commencing proceedings and limitations.

(6 year LP for actions of simple contract or tort.)

 

 

 

 

The commencement of proceedings stops time in respect of the particular cause of action on which the proceedings are based.........>

>..................... Bringing an action within the limitation period does Not stop the period from running generally.

 

 

IF AN ACTION IS STRUCK OUT OR ABORTED BEFORE JUDGEMENT IS GIVEN, A FRESH ACTION CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT IF THERE IS A BALANCE LEFT OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD.

Practice Note 0-500 0**

 

This shows that the limitation period continues as according to the original COA.


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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that there is a raft of data on this subject, but this PN is current and in constant use.

All boils down simply to no judgement the original cause of action starting the six year clock is maintained and the clock restarted from that date.


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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, this is repeating what has already been said. the question is does this apply in all cases to a discontinuance

 

There is also this to consider CPR 17 and also 19

 

Amendments to statements of case after the end of a relevant limitation period

17.4

(1) This rule applies where –

(a) a party applies to amend his statement of case in one of the ways mentioned in this rule; and

(b) a period of limitation has expired under –

(i) the Limitation Act 19801;

(ii) the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 19842; or

(iii) any other enactment which allows such an amendment, or under which such an amendment is allowed.

(2) The court may allow an amendment whose effect will be to add or substitute a new claim, but only if the new claim arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a claim in respect of which the party applying for permission has already claimed a remedy in the proceedings.

(3) The court may allow an amendment to correct a mistake as to the name of a party, but only where the mistake was genuine and not one which would cause reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party in question.

(4) The court may allow an amendment to alter the capacity in which a party claims if the new capacity is one which that party had when the proceedings started or has since acquired.

(Rule 19.5 specifies the circumstances in which the court may allow a new party to be added or substituted after the end of a relevant limitation period(GL))

Back to top


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry should have mentioned this first re discontinuance

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part38

 

The procedure for amending a statement of case, set out in Part 17, applies where a claimant abandons a claim for a particular remedy but wishes to continue with his claim for other remedies)


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...