Legislation question

silent gav

I wanted to see what you guys made of the following bit of legislation from the water services act 2014. Its regarding the commission for energy regulations roll in dispute resolution. The act states:

(2) The Commission shall not provide the dispute resolution service where the complaint—

(a) is or has been the subject of legal proceedings before a court,

(b) is made after the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the cause of the complaint is alleged to have occurred,

(c) relates to a matter that does not concern the functions or objectives of the Commission under the Water Services Acts 2007 to 2014, or

(d) is one to which subsection (4) or (7) relates.

(3) For the purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), a matter of a continuing nature is taken to have occurred at the time when it stopped and conduct that consists of series of acts or omissions is taken to have occurred when the last of those acts or omissions occurred.

My question relates to subsection 3. Would you take this to mean that
a) if the matter has not stopped it therefore can not be more than six years since it occurred and would be covered
b) if it has not stopped and is continuing for more than six years it is not covered

Thanks in advance for any help

Pro Hoc Vice

silent gav wrote: »

I wanted to see what you guys made of the following bit of legislation from the water services act 2014. Its regarding the commission for energy regulations roll in dispute resolution. The act states:

(2) The Commission shall not provide the dispute resolution service where the complaint—

(a) is or has been the subject of legal proceedings before a court,

(b) is made after the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the cause of the complaint is alleged to have occurred,

(c) relates to a matter that does not concern the functions or objectives of the Commission under the Water Services Acts 2007 to 2014, or

(d) is one to which subsection (4) or (7) relates.

(3) For the purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), a matter of a continuing nature is taken to have occurred at the time when it stopped and conduct that consists of series of acts or omissions is taken to have occurred when the last of those acts or omissions occurred.

My question relates to subsection 3. Would you take this to mean that
a) if the matter has not stopped it therefore can not be more than six years since it occurred and would be covered
b) if it has not stopped and is continuing for more than six years it is not covered

Thanks in advance for any help

It simple means that the limitation clause (being 6 years) you calculate that time from the last event being complained of. If another event occurs it does not stop the action it just means the limitation period can now be calculated from the time.

silent gav

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It simple means that the limitation clause (being 6 years) you calculate that time from the last event being complained of. If another event occurs it does not stop the action it just means the limitation period can now be calculated from the time.

Ok so let me put it more simply. If the cause of the complaint happened more than six years ago but its repricusions have been ongoing and have not stopped would this be covered

Pro Hoc Vice

silent gav wrote: »

Ok so let me put it more simply. If the cause of the complaint happened more than six years ago but its repricusions have been ongoing and have not stopped would this be covered

Not giving advice but I would not think so?

Losty Dublin

I had an account on their site years ago and found them utterly unresponsive when it came to any enquiries and complaints, many of which were related to their billing policies though one was a request to delete by profile, which they eventually did. Best of luck to you from getting anywhere with them.

jawn

The key phrases in interpreting this section are "cause of the complaint" and "series of acts or omissions".

1. Cause of complaint
You asked whether or not the repercussions of the "cause" would mean that the cause itself is "continuing". The answer is no. Metaphor time: If a boat hits an iceberg and begins to sink, what is the cause of the complaint? Hitting the iceberg. The fact that water may spill into the boat for hours and hours ultimately causing it to sink is a repercussion, but not something which serves to extend the time at which the boat hit the iceberg.

2. Series
If, after hitting the first iceberg hours earlier and filling with water and beginning to sink, a boat hit another iceberg which compelled the effect of the first iceberg, this may satisfy the subsection 3 requirement and may change the time at which the limitation period begins to run.