Jump to content

Andyorch

Site Team
  • Posts

    68,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    195

Andyorch last won the day on March 14

Andyorch had the most liked content!

Reputation

11,563 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

52,578 profile views
  1. Online Civil Money Claims pilot scheme—CPR PD 51R This practice note considers the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) pilot scheme under CPR PD 51R. The pilot provides an online process for money claims in the County Court up to £25,000 and aims to replace the Money Claim Online (MCOL) system. The pilot applies to represented and unrepresented parties. The pilot is accessed through the OCMC website and allows submission of claims and responses online. Claims must meet certain criteria to be suitable including value limits. Legally represented parties access it through MyHMCTS. Claims are issued and served electronically. Defendants can respond admitting or defending the claim. Questionnaires are completed to give directions. Claims can be sent out of the pilot in certain situations eg if unsuitable to continue online. Legal advisers have jurisdiction to deal with claims up to £1000. The pilot aims to provide an end to end digital process for suitable money claims. cpr-103-pd-update.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-reform-civil-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-online-civil-money-claims
  2. Welcome to the forum. How did you submit your court claim ? Northampton MCOL or the new Online Civil Money Claims ( OCMC ) ? The claimant had up until last Friday (4.00pm) to submit a defence. Andy .
  3. Topic moved to Dealing with Debt in Scotland Forum. Please continue to post here. Andy
  4. Wait for your Notice of Judgment takes longer than 1 week. Then you can look into updating the enforcement address if still unpaid.
  5. Feel free to tweak it further Lolerz but I think it now covers the main points and may give the claimant something to consider before continuing ? Do they want a can of worms opening ?
  6. So to save us referring back this is what we have so far... 1. The defendants owe the claimants the sum of £12,630 for arrears of service charge part of which has been outstanding and demanded since 1st April 2019 pursuant to a lease dated 4th September 1998. 2.The claimants claim interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from 1st April 2019 to 14th February 2024 on the said sum the interest being £1,009 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £2.77. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 01/04/2019 to 14/02/2024 on £13,632 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £2.77 What is the total value of the claim? £14,414 Proposed Defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are extremely vague and generic and misleading in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action protocol) and failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It Is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 2.Paragraph 1 is noted. The defendant/s are the leaseholders of xxxxxxxx. It denied that the alleged amount claimed is simply down to arrears and none payment. Having dealt with the Managing agents in trying to resolve this matter and arrange an affordable payment plan to which they refused. The managing agent appointed solicitors who again we tried to reach an affordable payment plan with but they refused. Not withstanding the above and with no admittance of liability we still continued to make payments and almost reduced the arrears down to 50% in the past year. 3. The claimants claim for section 69 interest be denied as its incorrectly calculated and duplicated. 4. The Defendant upon receipt of the Claim Form sent the Claimants Solicitor a CPR 31:14 request on 28th February 2024. To date, the claimant has failed to fulfil this request. 5. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to : (a) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (b) That the money for major works was legally demanded by way of Section 20 Notices as per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985; and (c) that Service Charge demands were correctly issued according to the terms of the lease and Section 21(B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. 6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. The Claim is denied. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed. .
  7. Thanks Lolerz I am just concerned this claim will be Fast Track and the claimants will no doubt milk the costs. I see your points re the technical legislative points which can be expanded on further into the process But from a judges perspective its a matter of getting his interest and not him simply viewing as a debtor or avoidance.
  8. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The defendant/s are the leaseholders of xxxxxxxx. It denied that the alleged amount claimed is simply down to arrears and none payment. Having dealt with the Managing agents in trying to resolve this matter and arrange an affordable payment plan to which they refused. The managing agent then appointed solicitors who again we tried to reach an affordable payment plan with but they refused. Not withstanding the above and with no admittance of liability we still continued to make payments and almost reduced the arrears down to 50% in the past year.
  9. I think your response to their paragraph 1 is a little sparse and allows the court to believe the claimants pleadings and that you are simply avoiding paying and by using the holding defence are simply complicating the claim. You could have included parts of the above to show the court that there is more to this claim than meets the eye. That the claimant has been unreasonable and by issuing the claims as a means to secure its investment /debt against the property mortgagee. I appreciate that you can expand on this if the claim proceeds but from the outset if your response had more detail/mitigation, it may discourage the claimant to review its position and possibly discontinue its claim. Don't worry if you have already submitted the defence or do not have time to amend. Lolerz ? Andy
×
×
  • Create New...