On 2024-12-10, TTman <
kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote:
long story. We have found another person that got ripped off by the
'rogue trader' Brief timelines:-
Contract signed 17/7/2018.
Install done Nov 2018.
Letter before action sent 20/7/2019
Customer enlisted help of legal dept. of the NFU and filed a claim (
MCOL) for £4300
court date listed for 10/6/2021 ( don't know why so long)
Final hearing set for 1/10/2021
But... in the meantime, the case got struck out because the complainant didn't pay the court fee - 20/08/2021
The reason being that neither he, nor the NFU solicitors could find an address for service.
This is yet another case of the defendant signing up a customer on an
'out of office contract' and NOT providing a correspondence address on
the contract.
Customer now wants to restart the case now as we have now got an address
for the 'rogue trader' .
So the question is this:- Is it definitely time barred, or is there a 'loophole' that we could use to get the case back in court?
Because of the lack of an address in the contract ( as in my prior case
that I won) he is guaranteed to win his case..
It depends. The time limit is "six years from the date on which the
cause of action accrued". So if the cause of action is the failure
to disclose information at the time of the signing of the contract,
then the limitation period expired in July, and if it was something
being wrong with the installation, then last month.
But possibly if the problem was that the information disclosed was
inaccurate, and this could not have been known until some later date
(e.g. when they tried to sue the defendant and couldn't find them)
then maybe it could be argued that the limitation period should be
six years from that date due to relevant facts being deliberately
concealed by the defendant (Limitation Act 1980 s32).
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)