Money claim Online form from OPC for 2014 case |
Money claim Online form from OPC for 2014 case |
Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 22:10
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 22 May 2017 Member No.: 92,126 |
Got home today to find a letter from Northhampton County Court money claim online form for an accident back in 2014. All I can remember is that my brother owned a vehicle with that number plate for a few months as he used to buy and sell cars back then.
Today, after 5.4 years, I have a 4 page form with details of the claim and a claim number and password to log on at their site www.moneyclaim.gov.uk. I tried many times but it wouldn't let me log in, I'm sure they don't have any evidence of damages or any of my personal details (except my full name which god know where they got it from). I read online that Section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) states the limitation period for a personal injury claim, which include road traffic accidents, is three years. So anyone else have any thoughts on this? Looks like unless I complete the form and return it to the court, they would just win and I would have a court judgement against me. Thanks in advance |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 22:10
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Mar 2020 - 22:17
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Potentially - been a while since I did any insurance law. If they subrogated the a time bar would make more sense. I might have a look some time. The particulars are so sparse it’s difficult to see exactly what they’re hanging their hat on. Funnily enough I'm up to my eyes in insurance subrogation right now, and my understanding is that the MiB would bring a subrogated claim as a result of which the 3 year period might well apply if it's a PI claim. As you say the particulars are not very helpful, but I'd include the limitation point just in case. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Mar 2020 - 10:29
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Potentially - been a while since I did any insurance law. If they subrogated the a time bar would make more sense. I might have a look some time. The particulars are so sparse it’s difficult to see exactly what they’re hanging their hat on. Funnily enough I'm up to my eyes in insurance subrogation right now, and my understanding is that the MiB would bring a subrogated claim as a result of which the 3 year period might well apply if it's a PI claim. As you say the particulars are not very helpful, but I'd include the limitation point just in case. Yes. Two questions which did spring to mind were 1. Can the MIB use subrogation (I don’t see why not, as it’s a common law/equitable mechanism - but I’m not aware of the answer specifically)? 2. I would expect a subrogation claim to be brought in the name of the injured party rather than the insurance company (MIB in this case) - or has that changed over the years? My view (without the benefit of looking into it too deeply) is that if it is a subrogation claim the MIB can be in no better position that the original claimant (based on subrogation in mortgage cases), though they may have a better argument re disapplication of the time limit. This post has been edited by southpaw82: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 - 10:29 -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 6 Mar 2020 - 18:13
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
As for 1, the notes for guidance to the untraced driver's agreement provides that:
MIB’s obligation is strictly only to satisfy a judgment obtained by the claimant in respect of a “relevant liability” which is not met by the offending driver within 7 days. However, where it is appropriate to avoid unnecessary expense and delay, MIB will often seek to settle the claim before a formal judgment is obtained and ask the claimant to assign his rights to pursue the driver so that MIB may attempt to recover its outlay. This is reflected in Article 15 here https://www.mib.org.uk/media/166917/2015-un...tland-wales.pdf and I suppose in a strict technical sense, subrogation and assignment are legally distinct concepts (though I strand to be corrected). Still, from first principles and without going into it in any great depth, I don't see how the MiB could be in a better position than the original claimant in any event. The only alternative would lead to the bizarre conclusion that a defendant who has a good limitation defence in law can be deprived of that defence by virtue of arrangements between two parties of which he may have no knowledge and over which he certainly has no control. That would seem to drive a coach and horses through the Limitation Act. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Mar 2020 - 23:01
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
This is reflected in Article 15 here https://www.mib.org.uk/media/166917/2015-un...tland-wales.pdf and I suppose in a strict technical sense, subrogation and assignment are legally distinct concepts (though I strand to be corrected). Interesting that MIB seems to rely on an assignment rather than subrogation. I wonder if that’s simply because it’s explicit rather than because they can’t rely on subrogation. QUOTE Still, from first principles and without going into it in any great depth, I don't see how the MiB could be in a better position than the original claimant in any event. The only alternative would lead to the bizarre conclusion that a defendant who has a good limitation defence in law can be deprived of that defence by virtue of arrangements between two parties of which he may have no knowledge and over which he certainly has no control. That would seem to drive a coach and horses through the Limitation Act. It would be wrong, though the Act doesn’t apply to many equitable remedies in any case. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 7 Mar 2020 - 15:57
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 22 May 2017 Member No.: 92,126 |
Hi everyone,
Just a quick update: I posted the defence form yesterday morning. I did include point 6 from cp 8759 as well. |
|
|
Sat, 11 Apr 2020 - 09:19
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 22 May 2017 Member No.: 92,126 |
Hi everyone,
Sorry for the late reply, Here are the letters I received from both parties. https://imgur.com/a/kK59Cd6 Do I need to do anything at this point? Many thanks |
|
|
Sat, 11 Apr 2020 - 10:48
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well there's a few interesting points I would think about putting to the other side. See what others say, but I think you should send two documents in reply:
1) A brief witness statement that denies you were driving the car on that date or at all, denying that you were ever the owner, keeper or driver of the car, and denying that you were ever the registered keeper of the car under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (Yes a WS is not required a this stage, but we might as well knock this one on the head) 2) A covering letter outlining that the claim is out of time due to the three year limit imposed by section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980, that there was no need for you to deny that you were uninsured as the claim form did not allege that you were uninsured, point out that there is no requirement to hold insurance in respect of a vehicle that you did not own, keep or drive, and also invite the claimant to withdraw its allegation of criminality unless it can be substantiated. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 14 Apr 2020 - 10:27
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 22 May 2017 Member No.: 92,126 |
Hi, I made the documents ready. I assume I will need to send them to the claimant company in one envelope, right?
Thank you |
|
|
Tue, 14 Apr 2020 - 11:12
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I suggest you share a draft, either on here or privately. Any witness statement needs to follow the precise requirements of Practice Direction 32 and the statement of truth has recently been changed, so you want to be sure you get it right.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 14 Apr 2020 - 21:29
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 22 May 2017 Member No.: 92,126 |
I've sent you a pm. Can you guide me, please? Regards
|
|
|
Thu, 17 Dec 2020 - 16:24
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Epilogue:
Don't want to say too much because there is a possibility of a criminal investigation against certain persons (not the OP) but long and the short of it is that a notice of discontinuance has now been served, and that was achieved just by sending a few appropriately worded letters. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Dec 2020 - 07:13
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Good, we need to make sure crime doesn't pay.
Thanks for the update, presumably you've been supporting the OP off forum so 'respect' as they say/ -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 23 Feb 2021 - 21:33
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 22 May 2017 Member No.: 92,126 |
UPDATE.
Here's the last email from MIB. All credit goes to "cp8759" ---------- date: 23 Feb 2021 --------- Dear sirs, I have been passed your recent correspondence to review. First of all, I would like to apologise to you on behalf of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau as it was not our or Weightmans intention to cause you any distress. As you have mentioned in the second paragraph of your e-mail dated 17th February 2021 MIB were looking to seek reimbursement of our outlay and we instructed Weightmans to act on our behalf in this matter. The information provided to us is why Weightmans were pursuing yourself. A phone call was made to Weightmans this morning who advised us that the proceedings have been discontinued and their file was closed in January 2021. We also understand they have provided you with details for the Solicitors Regulation Authority should you wish to contact them. We would like to advise you that we will no longer be pursuing you in this matter and our file will be closed. Once again, we apologise to you for the distress caused. If you have any further questions then please contact us. Regards James Steele Cert CII Recovery Handler Email: jsteele@mib.org.uk |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:03 |