Letter Before Claim from Liquidators for a company

[time2burn]

Hi
I have just received a strange Letter Before Claim based on the Pre Action Protocol 2017.
Liquidators for a company are demanding I pay back money [within 14 days] that I may of received back in 2013 through an alleged investment(it actually wasn’t, but they claim in was)
They basically state that the money I received was from a different bank account and company to that which I was supposed to be a member of, therefore ‘the fact of that payment imports a prima facie obligation to repay the money. This is confirmed in the case of Seldon v Davidson [1968]’

They state the money I may of ‘received from the company is treated in law as being a loan from the company which is repayable on demand.’

As this debt claim is not a credit card, loan or otherwise but rather money I MAY of received from a scheme/ investment, I fail to see how this is a debt, but am unsure how the law views this? It seems the liquidtors are trying to get as much money from the liquidated company as possible and may be sending this out to all who may have been paid from the companys bank account.

The other point I am unsure of is does the statute barred 6 years law apply to this type of case? As in their paperwork the last payment I was allegedly sent from the companys bank account was on 22/07/2013 which is over 6 years ago, the 1^stpayment was 07/01/2013.
This is the 1^stpaperwork I have ever received about this.

I have no records of this company anymore and no bank statements for that time, in fact I don’t even know which bank account they claim the money was paid into?

Therefore as part of the PAP reply form I can ask for certain docs etc, but not sure what to ask for and which Boxes to tick

Any suggestions/advice?
Thanks
SM

[time2burn]

Hi
As I have had no reply or suggestions i have completed the PAP Reply form as well as some extra questions asking for certain evidence and documents.
the main issue though which would be helpful if someone on this forum could answer is
Is this claim statute barred as Limitations Act 1980 Section 5?
It is not a CCA1974 'debt' but one as they state is owed due to the fact that i was allegedly paid from a different company bank account than the company i had allegedly invested in, and therefore this is classed as a loan and repayable on demand
they quote Seldon v Davidson [1968]
BUT
as no contact of any sort has been made between the parties in over 6 years (July 2013)does theÂ*Limitations Act 1980 apply to this type of 'debt'?

I can upload a copy of my Reply if that would help

Thanks

[R0b]

I'm afraid there's a lack of information to give any substantial answer to your questions.

The rule in Seldon v Davidson I believe is that in the absence of any documentary evidence, any payment may be treated as a loan and is therefore repayable, on the basis that if one receives a sum of money from a third party, the third party would expect to be repaid - the burden of proof rests with the Defendant to show otherwise.

When a company goes into liquidation, time stops for the purposes of bringing a claim (but not io one that is in administration). However, if the cause of action arose prior to the company going into liquidation, the usual limitation rules would apply i.e. the 6 year rule.

Not an insolvency expert but I wonder if the liquidator alleges that this payment is presumed to be a loan, and in the absence of you producing evidence to the contrary, you might be able to argue that the claim is statute barred on the basis that the cause of action accrued before the liquidation and since 6 years has subsequently passed which means any claim is time barred.

A cause of action (meaning a set of facts enabling one to sue) in a contract begins from the date of the breach. Assuming this was a loan agreement, the first repayment would have occurred in or around one month after the money had been received and, at that point, the failure to repay would have given rise to an action against you.

The other issue is whether the company has enough funds to pursue the debt and depending on the amount demanded, this could be a bluff by the liquidator.

[time2burn]

Hi
Thanks Rob for your input , that does help
My take on this is how can the defendant prove otherwise about the payment if if has no paperwork from either party showing the money going from 1 bank a/c to another?
As i dont have any paperwork from 6 years ago and the liquidators haven't provided any(except a list of the alleged payments, not actual bank statements or account numbers etc) surely it is just an accusation and they should prove the transfer of money?

Secondly i have no idea when the company they refer to went into administration or became liquidated, it may be before the 6 year period, so i will ask the questions as part of the Reply Form Box I which we can request documents etc.
Thanks