Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Letter from MIB and CCM wanting 2.5k
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
thebody
Hi there hope this is the right place to post this, wondering if anyone can offer some advice before I go to a solicitor.
Basically my partner received a letter today from the MIB and close credit management demanding payment of 2.5k for a accident she had nearly 5 years ago.
She made a stupid mistake and drove her mothers car when she was younger she had no insurance and only had a provisional license.
She didnt injure anyone (thank god) only causing damage to the motorway metal center divider.
Then out of the blue we get this letter today, were getting married in september and dont have that kind of money. God knows how much interest CCM have added on ?
Weve had no contact from the MIB or anyone prior to this date or who the claimant is ?
Just looking for advice on what our next steps should be ?
Thanks
nomadros
Here's a link I found. Don't know if the info contained in it is correct, but it does have a few key words to chse down in any searches.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...im-issued/page4
emanresu
Has she moved in the last 5 years?

Can't give you any legal advice but I would say there is a major market is buying up time-expired** or nearly time-expired** debt. I'll call it debt but in many cases its only an assertion of debt. Like the PPC's here.

Would suggest you take this over to the MSE forum as they have a better understanding of consumer debt.

**Time-expired means 6 years and you look close to it which raises my suspicions as to whether it has been bought or not. If it has been bought and you have not been told about this, it raises even more questions. Which is why you should go over to MSE.

thebody
Hi thanks for the replys ive posted on the MSE forums someone directed me to here.
No she hasnt moved in the last 5 years
mrh3369
Tell me why she does not think she should pay for the damage she caused? Any particular reason why the taxpayer should foot the bill for her? Sorry if you think that sounds harsh but it's a serious question.
thebody
No not harsh at all. It just seems 2.5k for a dented piece of metal is a bit steep.
Also she doesnt mind paying but what is she paying for ? They have never contacted her before, the council or the MIB no one.
Then nearly 5 years later to get a letter saying you owe 2.5k and we have added our interest seems unfair.
redloner
So the MIB has paid for the barrier and is now trying to recover the payment using Close as a debt collector?
Glacier2
How close is this to being Statute Barred?
mrh3369
Motorway repairs do tend to be rather expensive due to the amount of man power and equipment needed to close lanes in order for the repair to be made so it's probably that that's pushed the bill up and not simply the cost of the barrier.
thebody
I think its 6 years for property so theres another 1 year and 2 months before its Statute Barred

And i understand about the motorwat repairs she is willing to pay for this but for them to add interest and not even give a break down of the costs involved is unfair
The Rookie
If there is no breakdown, why do you assume interest has been added? As has been said, Mway repairs are expensive.

Simon
Logician
What I think should have happened is that your partner's mother's insurers should have handled the claim as agent for the MIB, and only claimed against MIB if they could not recover the claim from your partner. MIB would then inherit the right to claim from your partner. This should all have meant that your partner should have known all about the claim at the time. Even if she is liable for the claim, she should certainly not be having to pay any debt collector's charges if she has never been told of the claim. I would go to MIB and ask them exactly what has happened. MIB website
thebody
Theres interest added because it states in the letter we received today.
Also the car wasnt insured as my partners mother had recently purchased a new car and transfered the insurance over to that.
Also my partner was only 17 at the time of the incident classing her as a minor would this make a difference ?
Logician
Sometimes insurers are still associated with a car, but if not, then there should have been some way of establishing liability, such as a judgement against your partner. It may be that could not be satisfied at the time as she had no money, but now she is presumably earning. Finding out what MIB say has happened appears to be the next step.
thebody
Ok thanks for the help i will contact the MIB asking why she wasnt given a chance to defend herself before the compensation was paid and although she was convicted of driving without insurance she has never admitted liability for any damage caused
Grant_W
What has she got to defend?

She had no insurance and she damaged the barrier, is that correct or am I missing something?
thebody
But was the barrier damaged did it need repairing ?
Were is the breakdown in costs ?
As a 17 year old she was classed as a minor therefore not liabile for any costs of the damage incurred.
And why has it taken 5 years ?
southpaw82
QUOTE (thebody @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 17:38) *
As a 17 year old she was classed as a minor therefore not liabile for any costs of the damage incurred.


Really? On what basis are you claiming that? If it were so then no insurance would ever pay out for an accident involving a 17 year old driver (as insurance only pays for their liability).
roadrunner 163
just so you know. If you make any offer to pay. Even a 1p a week the debt becomes enforcable and will not expire.
Whilst i dont condone uninsured driving this has become money making exercise for 3rd party companies and will use every dirty trick in the book to get you to make an offer of repayment. DO NOT MAKE ANY OFFER until proper definative advice is obtained. The customer serviices will be very skilled at making them soundd like your best friend and will help you through this...
Glacier2
Do not acknowledge the debt.
jaykay
QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Sun, 29 May 2011 - 11:55) *
Do not acknowledge the debt.


I would agree - I would suggest you do nothing. Remember debt collecting companies have no powers - it's not their debt.

Perhaps, maybe, you will get more letters and threats - unless actual court papers come along keep filing the paperwork.

Look up the legal principle of "laches".
Gan
QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 22:55) *
Do not acknowledge the debt.

Agree.

IIRC it restarts the clock and gives them another six years.
andy_foster
QUOTE (jaykay @ Sun, 29 May 2011 - 01:20) *
Look up the legal principle of "laches".


AIUI, "laches" or 'sleeping on one's rights' is an equitable defence to equitable claims, as opposed to claims under law (contract or tort).
thebody
A lot of people have contacted MIB directly via email. Would people not advise to do this ?
Just to clarify she understands what she did was wrong and was willing to pay for the damages. But to have no contact for 5 years and for them to add on interest is out of order
AFCNEAL
QUOTE (thebody @ Sun, 29 May 2011 - 11:50) *
A lot of people have contacted MIB directly via email. Would people not advise to do this ?
Just to clarify she understands what she did was wrong and was willing to pay for the damages. But to have no contact for 5 years and for them to add on interest is out of order



Suggest you leave your perception of the immoralities out of your approach though - apart from not being a defence, your GF has had their money for 5 years and the opportunity to earn the same/interest anyway so there's no unfairness to one party in favour of another. The unfairness seems to stem from them not asking for it!!
Glacier2
QUOTE
A lot of people have contacted MIB directly via email. Would people not advise to do this ?

Yes.

What has been said in these emails?
Logician
QUOTE (thebody @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 17:38) *
But was the barrier damaged did it need repairing ?
Were is the breakdown in costs ?
As a 17 year old she was classed as a minor therefore not liabile for any costs of the damage incurred.
And why has it taken 5 years ?

If she was liable being a minor would not save her, but liability needed to have been properly established, or the MIB should not have paid out. If she had no money she could not pay, and her parents were not liable. They may suppose she now is earning and has some money. We cannot answer these questions, but the MIB can, therefore you need to ask them as I have said, but without admitting any liability.
BicycleRepairMan
I dodnt think you could be held liable for an act committed when you are a minor, when you become an adult later on..............
The Rookie
So crash a car into another when your 17 and turn 18 before they make a claim and your home scot free?

"I don't think" - Can't disagree with that!

Simon
Glacier2
The driving age would need to be raised to 18 if that was the case.
BicycleRepairMan
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 29 May 2011 - 17:29) *
So crash a car into another when your 17 and turn 18 before they make a claim and your home scot free?

"I don't think" - Can't disagree with that!

Simon



Why then are you legally a minor and unable to sign a contract till you're 18 - is it not because any such contract is unenforceable?


According to NetLaw http://www.netlawman.co.uk/info/entering-contract-minor.php

QUOTE
Who is a minor?
A minor is someone under the age of 18 years according to the Births and Deaths Registration Amendment Act (No 1 of 2002). This is called the age of majority. The age of majority was reduced from 21 to 18 years by this Act.

The general position
Everyone knows that to form a legally binding contract there must be an offer, acceptance and an intention to create a legally binding contract. The law presumes that some people do not have the power to make contracts. These people are:

* Children under 7 years;
* People who are mentally insane;
* People who are very drunk or drugged.


A minor can therefore, enter into a contract. However, the law always assumes that a minor cannot understand the implications of a contract. So, whatever caveat is drafted into the contract, a minor will remain protected even to the disadvantage of the other party.

Further, a contract with a minor is void able. The minor is able to cancel any contract at any time prior to reaching the age of majority and for a reasonable period after that time. There is no requirement for the minor to have a justifiable reason for this, it can be done on a whim or where it may be advantageous to the child to do so.

Exceptions
Fortunately, the situation is not quite so clear-cut for all contracts with children. There is one key exception to the general position outlined above and this relates to contracts of service, apprenticeship and education with children. The rationale behind this exception is to give organisations certainty when entering into a contract with a child that enables that child to earn his living or to start to do so.

These contracts can potentially be binding on children provided that they are beneficial to the minor. This exception will always be subject to the child being at least old enough to understand the nature of the contract that they are entering into - if they are not, the contract will fall outside this exception and be void able in line with the general position.

The position at law
Even if a contract with a minor does fall within the contract of service exception and is considered beneficial, one must also consider the extent to which a court would enforce such a contract.

A court would not "force" any person (whether it be an adult or minor) to carry out a contract for personal services because as a matter of public policy parties should not be forced to continue in a personal relationship against their will. Therefore the only remedy is of damages arising from breach of contract.
southpaw82
QUOTE (BicycleRepairMan @ Sun, 29 May 2011 - 21:11) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 29 May 2011 - 17:29) *
So crash a car into another when your 17 and turn 18 before they make a claim and your home scot free?

"I don't think" - Can't disagree with that!

Simon



Why then are you legally a minor and unable to sign a contract till you're 18 - is it not because any such contract is unenforceable?


According to NetLaw http://www.netlawman.co.uk/info/entering-contract-minor.php

QUOTE
Who is a minor?
A minor is someone under the age of 18 years according to the Births and Deaths Registration Amendment Act (No 1 of 2002). This is called the age of majority. The age of majority was reduced from 21 to 18 years by this Act.

The general position
Everyone knows that to form a legally binding contract there must be an offer, acceptance and an intention to create a legally binding contract. The law presumes that some people do not have the power to make contracts. These people are:

* Children under 7 years;
* People who are mentally insane;
* People who are very drunk or drugged.


A minor can therefore, enter into a contract. However, the law always assumes that a minor cannot understand the implications of a contract. So, whatever caveat is drafted into the contract, a minor will remain protected even to the disadvantage of the other party.

Further, a contract with a minor is void able. The minor is able to cancel any contract at any time prior to reaching the age of majority and for a reasonable period after that time. There is no requirement for the minor to have a justifiable reason for this, it can be done on a whim or where it may be advantageous to the child to do so.

Exceptions
Fortunately, the situation is not quite so clear-cut for all contracts with children. There is one key exception to the general position outlined above and this relates to contracts of service, apprenticeship and education with children. The rationale behind this exception is to give organisations certainty when entering into a contract with a child that enables that child to earn his living or to start to do so.

These contracts can potentially be binding on children provided that they are beneficial to the minor. This exception will always be subject to the child being at least old enough to understand the nature of the contract that they are entering into - if they are not, the contract will fall outside this exception and be void able in line with the general position.

The position at law
Even if a contract with a minor does fall within the contract of service exception and is considered beneficial, one must also consider the extent to which a court would enforce such a contract.

A court would not "force" any person (whether it be an adult or minor) to carry out a contract for personal services because as a matter of public policy parties should not be forced to continue in a personal relationship against their will. Therefore the only remedy is of damages arising from breach of contract.


Except we're not talking about a contract, we're talking about a tort.
mrh3369
Is car insurance provided to 17 year olds not a contract? Do 16 and 17 year olds not sign employment contracts? Do you that these are not valid and legal?
BicycleRepairMan
I also found

QUOTE
As long as you hold a valid drivers license, you usually can obtain motor vehicle insurance as long as meet the insurance companies underwriting requirements, such as no tickes, no accidents, no suspensions, and do not ow any insurance company money. If you are young, usually the premium is high.

The idea behind letting a minor enter in to a insurance contract is one of the few contracts a minor can enter in. Because if you have a license to drive, you need insurance.


so it may well be possible to hold a minor to a car insurance contract.
southpaw82
QUOTE (BicycleRepairMan @ Sun, 29 May 2011 - 21:18) *
I also found

QUOTE
As long as you hold a valid drivers license, you usually can obtain motor vehicle insurance as long as meet the insurance companies underwriting requirements, such as no tickes, no accidents, no suspensions, and do not ow any insurance company money. If you are young, usually the premium is high.

The idea behind letting a minor enter in to a insurance contract is one of the few contracts a minor can enter in. Because if you have a license to drive, you need insurance.


so it may well be possible to hold a minor to a car insurance contract.

Apart from the fact that it is clearly American (license, suspensions etc) and will, therefore, presumably rely on the law of one or more of the US states, a contract for the benefit of a minor can be enforced against them.
Logician
From General Principles of Tort Law:

The position of minors as defendants has not been considered very much, probably
because they would not normally be able to satisfy a judgment. In principle,
there is no reason why a person of any age cannot be sued.
In practice, it may be that
the courts set the standard of care according to the age of the child (see Chapter 7),
although in theory the standard of care in negligence is an objective one.
The Rookie
Now we have the diversion out of the way, back on topic....

On ethought, the OP's partner surely never had a debt with the MIB but with the highways agency who owned the barriers, so do the MIB have a genuine claim? Ordinarily I suspect not but is there something in legislation to give the MIB some recourse here.

Simon
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.