Has anyone else read the latest proposals on limitation law from the Law Commission? If so what is your interpretation of it?

Mark.

-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002

Answers

Can you tell us where we might see the proposals you refer to Mark? Is there a link?

-- Gordon Bennet (arsenewhinger@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

Heres a link to some info regarding this - haven't really looked at it in too much detail yet. Post comments here?

http://www.freshfields.com/practice/disputeresolution/publications/pdf s/1655.pdf

-- mark (cantpaywontpay2000@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

Gordon, I've sent you a pdf file with the report, I haven't got an address where you can see it,yet. If I find it, I'll post it here. The ref. is as follows:

56/34 Limitation Periods Final report (Law Com No 270) on the law relating to limitation periods was published on 10.7.01. It contained our proposals for a unified limitation regime.

Regards, Mark.

-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

I've found the address if anyone else is brave enough to read it, it's on:

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/library/lc270/lc270.pdf

In case anyone is interested the Law Society is in the process of setting up a working party to explore in detail the report of the Law Commission and examine the impact on a variety of areas.

Best Wishes, Mark.

-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

The interesting bit I think is page 149 of the report, section 4.161 ff, where the result of the consultation on limitation of mortgage debts is explained. Basically, 60% of consultees recommended a single 10 year limit for this kind of claim. A small number wanted to have a 3 yr/10yr system, and fewer still suggested a single 12 yr limit. So the recommendation is 10 years. Unless this is contradicted elsewhere in the document...I haven't read all 318 pages:-|

-- Melody (mbc109@york.ac.uk), May 03, 2002.

I am reading this thing progressively in between my mid-terms (aggh!) - the ten year thing has to be amended somewhere because there cannot be one single time limit (of any duration) without impacting on the existing debt simple legislation. If anyone finds it - point me in the right direction please! If I find it I will post it up here.

-- Too scared to say (iwasduped@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.

Too scared to say

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you're looking for is on p159 17. Claims on a Statute, 4.201 and 4.202. It's probably better to start reading from p148, as these proposals will be likely to change anyway, after further consultations. I've particularly noticed 4.163 where the Land Registry stated "that reducing the limitation period could increase the number of occasions on which a lender will enforce its security", any comments on that? Also note 5.36 p202 and 5.40 3 p204.

Regards, Mark.

-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

What has caught my attention are the reasons the Law Commission give for not reducing the Limitation Law. See below:

Extract 4.162 Reducing the limitation period applicable to claims to enforce a mortgage or charge over land from twelve to three years might lead the lender to resort more rapidly to enforcing the security, making the borrower homeless as a consequence. It would, of course, be possible to treat claims to enforce a mortgage or charge over a dwelling house differently from claims to enforce a mortgage or charge over other forms of land.178 However, we consider that this would create unnecessary complexity.

4.163 A number of consultees argued that allowing mortgagees or chargees a longer limitation period than the three year primary limitation period for claims to enforce a mortgage or charge over land would have equally adverse practical consequences. It was suggested that mortgagees will delay commencing proceedings until the amount outstanding on the mortgage is so large that the borrower has no opportunity to pay it within a realistic time-frame, so that the mortgagee has no alternative but to take possession. This argument was rejected by other consultees, most notably the Land Registry, which argued that reducing the limitation period could increase the number of occasions on which a lender will enforce its security.

It is also interesting to note the reaction of the insurance companies, see 5.35 & 5.36. Also, as I understand it, the LC doesn't want to make the new limitation period retrospective,see 5.40 (3). Although, I shall be including a proposal to make it retrospective in tne e-petition.

I think it would still be better to reduce the limitation period to 3 years even though in some cases the lender might resort to enforcing the security more rapidly. What does everyone else think?

In 4.162 they say that it would create unnecessary complexity to treat claims to enforce a mortgage or charge over a dwelling house differently from claims to enforce a mortgage or charge over other forms of land, What justification is that? What we want is a fair system.

Or,have I got it all wrong?

Mark.

-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.