10 year old ERC

[alexifa]

What is the thinking on trying to claim back an ERC that was paid 10years ago? The ERC was £3,000 and statutory interest would be another £2,600!

 

I understand that I am relying on the Limitations Act 1980:

 

32.--

• (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
  • (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
    
  • (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
    
  • © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

  [*]the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. ....

  [*](2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty. . . .

Any thoughts on this?

 

I suspect that the company involved may have no records of this account as it was more than six years ago, but I have all the relevant details.

 

Not sure if I'm missing anything here.

[gizmo111]

What you arre thinking is correct - have a look around at other claims going over 6 years. Which mortgage co?

[zootscoot]

I would say s.32(1)© would be a safer bet and easier route.

 

Under s.32(1)(b) you would have to establish that they had deliberately concealed the facts relating to your cause of action. You can not rely on any concealment of the law. You could perhaps argue that they had concealed their costs and therefore you had no opportunity to question the lawful nature of the charges. However, in order to do so you would have to establish that they had a duty to reveal those costs. Given that the banks rely on commercial sensitivity of costs it will be very difficult to establish such a duty.

 

Under s.32(1)© you only have to show that you paid the money under a mistake. The mistake would be that you believed the money was lawfully due. Mistake of law is allowed as a basis for recover of money as established in Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln CC which lifted the rule against recovery is such situations.

 

House of Lords - Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Lincoln City Council

Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Mayor etc. of the London Borough of Southwark and Others

Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Birmingham City Council

Kleinwort Benson LTD. v. Mayor etc. of the Lo

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

[alexifa]

Thanks Zoot. I was hoping for your input. I will send a preliminary letter on Monday and will post the reply here.