Cause of Action

[Anthony72]

I have read , until I am sick of reading, arguments about when the limitations act starts i.e the cause of action on a debt. I have also read that some DCA's are saying it is the default but I was looking for a case to reply to another thread and I thought it may be relevant

Swansea city council v Glass 1992 ( sorry I don't understand the technical way to quote it ) seems to be relevant. Surely then the dfault notice is only a procedural step on the way to court and not the cause of action in itself, the cause of action would be doing something that started the process such as missing a payment or maybe missing two payments depending on the contract. If a contact says they could issue a default after two missed payments, why would you have to wait for them to get into gear and actually do it.

Maybe I should never have asked as I am sure there will be some strong opinions.

Maybe it is something that will get some rulings although I doubt the debt industry want it in black and white when judges can make up the rules as they go along (or so it seems)

[des8]

Re: Cause of Action

In this regard you might also want to look up King's/Queen's Bench Division/1891/Volume 2/REEVES v. BUTCHER.
and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea V Khan [2002] EWCA Civ 279
And this thread here:http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?45815-Cause-of-Action-Discussion

[Anthony72]

Re: Cause of Action

Thanks
I hope there is a noddy version of those rulings for me to read

[des8]

Re: Cause of Action

Reeves v Butcher for starters:
The plaintiff lent money to the defendant under a written agreement, which recited an agreement for a loan for five years, "subject to the power to call in the same at an earlier period in the events hereinafter mentioned." The defendant agreed to pay interesticon quarterly, and the plaintiff agreed not to call in the money for five years if the defendant should regularly pay the interest. And it was provided that if the defendant should make default in payment of any quarterly payment of interest for twenty-one days the plaintiff might call in the principal. No interest was ever paid. The plaintiff commenced his action to recover the principal and interest within six years from the end of the term of five years: -

Held (affirming the decision of Day and Lawrance, JJ.), that the statute of limitationsicon was a good defense, for that the time began to run from the earliest time at which the plaintiff could have brought her action - i.e., twenty-one days after the first installment of interest be came due.

[Henti]

Re: Cause of Action

Problem with these cases is that they are not regulated agreements and therefore the rules do not apply the same way.

On a regulated agreement the creditor is not "entitled to enforce" untill after the default proceedure and termination, that is the earliest he can take proceeding (in court ).

Having said that there is a lot of opinion which says the notice is just a procedural bar. As you say untill there is some guidance it is a matter of, you pays your money etc.