MIB chasing for 17,500 !!

[solar30]

I was involved in an accident back in 2000, in which i hit a car from the rear.As the car was a works car i had borrowed i believed i was covered by my employer, But this turned out Not to be the case.

2 days later i was sacked.

 

I recieved no conviction for no insurance and just assumed the matter had gone away

 

However i have recieved a few letters from MID stating they paid out the 3rd party almost $17,580, and they believe it was me and want a payment in full.

 

Surely an incident that happened 12 years ago cant be brought up now, or can it?

 

does my case fall into statute barred?

 

please help

 

Regards

[Sidewinder]

MIB have a history of this and have issued claims in the past. You should in the first instance write back and deny any liability for their claim, which in addition is now Statute Barred under the Limitation Act 1980. Invite them to provide evidence that the Limitation Act does not apply to their claim should they wish to correspond further.

[Sidewinder]

Some useful information on this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?287914-MIB-Close-Credit-Management-Claim-issued

 

Many people in similar circumstances have had their cases discontinued once the constraints of the Limitation Act and lack of any previous correspondence have been pointed out to MIB.

[solar30]

thanks for that, puts me a ease

 

does the 6 years start from the date of the accident or date of payout?

 

regards

[unclebulgaria67]

In my opinion, the date the liability was created i.e the accident date.

 

That is the only date that makes sense to me, for such a claim.

 

Do as suggested, Just write back, saying that they must prove that any liability exists and that the matter is outside of the limitations act 1980. Suggest that they refer the matter to their legal officers before they make contact again, otherwise if they contact you again without such information you will take legal advice and send them the bill.

[theuprightman]

Having some previous issues with Mib claims the first thing I would do is check the ccj register and make sure nothing is marked against you on there as the debt will have seen several collections agencies prior to this letter not including dodgy injury solicitors.

 

Secondly, with regards to he statute of limitations, sec33 will be wheeled out as it will be a personal injury claim.

[unclebulgaria67]

Good advice to check for CCJ.

 

Also if the MIB want to claim from you for something that is not statute barred, they will have to explain this to you. They can't simply send you a demand.

 

If there was a minor involved in the accident with a personal injury, they will have up to 3 years after their 18th birthday to pursue a claim. The claim was made and paid out by the MIB, so they will have details of the loss. They should really have written to you stating their legal case and not just a demand.

[solar30]

Hi, Thanks for your advice, i have just checked my credit file and there is no CCJ's regarding this matter

 

Even though the accident happened 12 years ago, the third party only received the payout 9 months ago,

[unclebulgaria67]

Hi, Thanks for your advice, i have just checked my credit file and there is no CCJ's regarding this matter

 

Even though the accident happened 12 years ago, the third party only received the payout 9 months ago,

 

Ok, credit files should only contain information about CCJ's in the last 6 years.

 

I don't think it is worth you checking further. Just write back, as suggested earlier. It is up to the MIB to state their legal case and not just ask you for the money.

 

I would think the third party had been trying to claim from the Insurers who had cover on the vehicle at the time. Obviously for whatever reason, the Insurers have managed to avoid paying the claim and then it has gone to the MIB. Not your problem if the MIB have had to pay the claim and cannot now claim from you. Let them make their case in writing setting out the legal basis for this and you can then obtain advice.

[greasmonkey]

also if the car was being used in the course of your work and was a comp. car

it is down to the comp to have insurance on the car

[theuprightman]

Something with the ops Case doesn't quite add up.

 

Eleven years for a payout to be made?

No contact with his employers at the time?

 

 

I think rathe than just write it off until they forward their case I think I little look behind the wardrobe door might be in question.

[Endymion]

The MIB have 2 years from the date of settlement to issue recovery proceedings against the OP under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, so they still have 15 months to run!

[greasmonkey]

in the first post you say you was sacked did you take the car without permision

[unclebulgaria67]

The MIB have 2 years from the date of settlement to issue recovery proceedings against the OP under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, so they still have 15 months to run!

 

Useful info. I still think the OP should write back and ask for the MIB to state their case. I wouldn't be paying anything until I knew they had a totally legitimate case. When the MIB write back, the OP should get legal advice, given the amount involved.

[unclebulgaria67]

in the first post you say you was sacked did you take the car without permision

 

Think if the MIB continue to pursue this, that the OP will need to discuss the circumstances with a Solicitor. It may have been that the cars were available for staff to use or they were given the car by another employee. Or they just took it without obtaining relevant permission.

[unclebulgaria67]

There is a legal question which I cannot answer, but you should ask. Does the MIB have to inform anyone from whom they may seek a recovery of their outlay, of any claims made to them and in particular any legal proceedings ? From what I have read, the MIB would have had to make attempts to contact you, as soon as they were aware that you could be requested to compensate them for outlay they had to make ? To not do so, may be considered a breach of your legal rights, as well as looking to gain advantage over you, in terms of the time limit for pursuing you.

 

I think it may well be possible to fight any action by the MIB, but you need a solicitor who has good knowledge of these matters.

[Endymion]

The MIB have confirmed to the op that they are going to pursue him for their outlay before proceedings have been issued going on what the OP has confirmed in that they have sent him a few letters.

 

Good advice re a solicitor though and definitely get as much info as you can regarding payments made, to whom and what for etc.

 

What the op has also got to remember is that hiring a solicitor for a defence will also cost £000-0000's (possibly even if the OP wins) and if you force the MIB to issue proceedings, their costs of doing so and up to any settlement if they win will be on top of the original sum.

[unclebulgaria67]

Endymion

 

Not disputing what you say about the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. But there have been cases arguing about this and time limits that apply. I am not sure it is a straightforward case of saying that the MIB can pursue and that you can quote cases that confirms this. There could also be the complication that the OP believed that the vehicle he drove was Insured by the company he worked for.

 

I think the OP needs to ask the MIB to explain their legal case in writing and then the OP will have to get further advice. They would have to consider the advice, before they rack up any further costs. If they don't have the money, they may strike lucky and get someone to help them on pro bono basis. The MIB may not wish to take forward any court action, if they have any concern about chances of success.

[theuprightman]

We have still yet to confirm if it is the Mib contacting the OP or a third party collections agency.

 

I still find it bizarre that its took 11 years for it to be settled. Was it a minor that put the claim in?

 

Have the Mib started the case against his previous employer and they have turned round stating he wasn't covered by them for reason X

[raydetinu]

the owner of the vehicle and their insurers should be the ones to cover this, unless the vehicle was taken without permission!

[dacouc]

the owner of the vehicle and their insurers should be the ones to cover this, unless the vehicle was taken without permission!

 

But if the driver eg the OP has been identified then the Insurer of the vehicle should be paying out not the MIB

[greasmonkey]

the op as not been on since the ninth and hasent said weather he had permision

to use the car