Letter before action from my sons tuition centre

[Cherryblue]

I have just received a letter before action from my sons tuition centre which he attended just over 5 years ago! My son attended the centre briefly whilst doing his a-levels and he signed up and paid for it himself. I had absolutely nothing to do with any of it and never went there to sign anything.

I have experience of this tuition centre centre as I sent my children a few times over the years when they were around 12-14 years old. Whilst the teaching was great the admin side of things was extremely chaotic and they didn’t seem to be very good at record keeping, I routinely had to wait for up to an hour in the office just to make a payment as they never seemed to be able to find anything in there.

I asked my son about the outstanding amount for his tuition and he said that he paid everything he owed them at the time but it was in cash at the counter. Obviously it’s now over 5 years later and he has no idea where the receipt is (most likely went in the bin at least 4 years ago!)

Where do I stand legally with this issue. The letter was addressed to ‘the parents of...(sons name) bearing in mind my son is now 24!
and they have added a £50 fee despite this being the first letter we have ever received in 5 years.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[Cherryblue]

Edited to add: My son just got off work and sat down to work the dates out and it was actually summer of 2013 that he attended so it’s actually just over 6 years not 5.

[efpom]

If the dates are right, then the claimant is out of time to bring a claim - Limitation Act

[Cherryblue]

If the dates are right, then the claimant is out of time to bring a claim - Limitation Act

Yes dates are definitely right. Phew thanks! I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the letter! It was a badly written threatening letter purporting to come from the tuition centres 'legal team' which I know for a fact that they don't have!

Should I write back to say it was already paid and is now out of time anyway or should I just ignore it? I'm confused who they thought they were going to summons to court when it was addressed to 'the parents of' and they don't even know our names but to be honest I'd really rather keep it that way!

[efpom]

I would simply ignore it, for now. Keep sthum on the Limitation Act for the present. let the "legal team" work that out for themselves.

You might wish to post up the letter from the "legal team" - for my entertainment, if nothing else!

[Cherryblue]

So....update to this post almost a year later we have now received a ‘solicitors letter’ from the tuition centre! I’m pretty sure it’s fake as I would imagine any solicitor would not take up a case where a. They don’t even know the names of the persons they are trying to recover money from and b. They would know it’s useless to try and recover it 6 years down the line!!

<img src="https://i.ibb.co/v4Jh98V/E0724440-BF78-495-E-8325-1-ADD7-EBF4-CAC.jpg" alt="E0724440-BF78-495-E-8325-1-ADD7-EBF4-CAC" border="0">

[Cherryblue]

[Cherryblue]

Seems they have nothing better to do in lock down than try and extort money from people who don’t owe them anything!

[R0b]

Well actually Thomas Higgins Limited is a regulated firm, so it wouldn't be fake as you suggest. Also you are saying that they don't know the name of the person they are trying to recover the money from, but you said it is set as "Parents of ..." have they got the name completely wrong?

I would suggest you put this one to bed and explain to them that your son is now an adult and this is a matter between them and him, and in any event any claim would be statute barred since it is over 6 years since the alleged debt (which is denied) came about. On a side note, they've failed to comply with the Pre-action Protocols for Debt Claims because their letter is not sufficiently detailed to explain the debt and how it is made up, as the Protocol says they must do, just a template letter for a cheap price.

Your son should really be dealing with this now since he is an adult, not you as his parents but obviously that's a matter between you and him.

[Cherryblue]

Thankyou so much for your reply. They have my sons name correct but they are targeting myself and my husband but they don’t know our names. I shall take your advice and write a letter to the solicitors detailing what you have explained.
your advice was much appreciated

[ostell]

Perhaps you would care to post the letter on here for critique before you send

[Cherryblue]

Will do - thanks

[efpom]

If I was in your shoes, I would do nothing until the claimant issues proceedings. My reasons are as follows:
1 - The claimant would have to pay the court fee to issue proceedings.
2 - The claimant would have to identify, by name, each of the defendants.
3 - Having been served with the claim form and particulars of claim (if that is a separate document) then, and only then, should you enter your defence to the claim.
4- In order to prepare your defence, you are entitled to a copy of all documents mentioned in the claim form and the particulars of claim - AKA statement of case.

I would not make any response to the solicitor's letter - you were not invited by it to do so, and it is not a letter before action as it's wholly unparticularised Further and see it's first paragraph - 'instructed to apply to you for payment..", the letter does not say that if you do not pay, proceedings will issue.

Do note that if your child was under 18 at the time the asserted debt arose, he is not a party to the contract and cannot become a defendant, simply because he is now over 18.

[des8]

But OP states "he signed up and paid for it himself. I had absolutely nothing to do with any of it and never went there to sign anything."
So a court would see this as a minor contracting for a necessary, (which includes contracts for education for the benefit of the minor) /.
Also son is now 24, and contracted 5 or 6 years ago which puts him at least on the cusp of 18

So he would be a party to the contract

[Cherryblue]

My son studied at this tuition centre in the summer of 2013 he would have been 17 as he was studying for his a-levels. He is now 24, (25 in December). This is now just over 7 years ago.