But, as has already been said, whether by accident or design you actually received the notices of hearings and attended court. I think you would struggle,particularly after all this time that you've done nothing, to have the judgment set aside on the basis of the reasons given.

At the end of the day, if you had received more paperwork/the paperwork you receive had been addressed properly what actual difference would that have made?

Sir or Madam

What was wrong with the car? What did you write in your defence to the claim?

But is 'suggestion' a good defence

The choice, as they say, is yours. I don't do what many will and tell you what you should do. At the end of the day it is your friend's choice and no one on this forum will be there to pick up the pieces if the legal process goes wrong for your friend.

I have tried to give you a few ideas and avenues based on the t&cs but I won't give advice because I don't think it's fair.

Having reread the post, the t&cs do say "leaving the client" which suggests a deduction at source.

I don't understand the final sentence above; if a company was instructed to recover money and two settlements were offered surely your friend would have wanted to accept them to *reduce* her indebtedness.

Also, check the t&cs to see if the company were entitled to offset the sums recovered against the balances on these debts. In any event your friend has benefited from the work done by the company as her debts are now reduced. This is the same as if the money had been paid directly to her and then she pays off part of the balance. Also, the above extract from the t&cs doesn't say the fee will be taken at source although it is somewhat implied.

Unfortunately it is starting to look as though the company did as they were asked in claiming money on your friends' behalf and now your friend is refusing to pay.

Can't see that the mandatory grounds in Part 13 apply for pure failure of service only.

see CPR 13.2 and CPR 12.3. Then consider CPR 10.3 and note that the relevant time is from the date of service. Therefore, if, and it is a big if, the claim has not been properly served the relevant time under CPR 12.3 would not yet have begun to run and therefore could not have expired at the time default judgment was entered. As a result, CPR 13.2 applies and the court must set the judgment aside.

To the OP, you're quite right to say it is a risk to rely on just one line of argument. There is no harm in arguing that the judgment should not have been entered and therefore must be set aside but, if this is found to be wrong, nonetheless the judgment should be set aside under the court's discretionary power at CPR 13.3.

 

I take it that even if they sent the required info on Thursday for example, we would just have a new date allocated for submitting an amended defence

I haven't read through your thread so this may not be accurate but generally if the court tells you to file a defence by a certain time then you must do so; there will be no automatic extension of time unless you agree it with the other side or get a court order to that effect.

Do the t&cs define "successful claims"?

If your friend received letters saying they had been able to recover her money why did she not ask for it or chase it up?

EDIT: I absolutely agree that the signature point is not worth exploring.

If the OP reads CPR Part 6, on service, and concludes that the pleadings were not served (as opposed to just not received) then she can apply for the judgment to be set aside on mandatory grounds and need not prove a real prospect of successfully defending the claim or some other good reason; non-service is sufficient.

The OP needs to drop this 3 letter/estoppel system as it is worthless junk.

A contract does not need to be signed by both parties at the same time, otherwise how would that be defined? Signature by both in the same second? That would be impossible. Instead both parties have to sign before the contract is executed and takes effect.

It's not for the company to accept or reject a signature, if that's how your friend signed her name then that was her valid signature. Of course, if you're suggesting that she didn't sign that way then that is another matter entirely.

You should check the terms and conditions very carefully to find out if the charge was supposed to be a commission taken from any money recovered, as your friend believes, or calculated in some other way.

I need to know whether the copy documents they have sent are CCA compliant or not.Thanks

Without uploading the documents it's impossible to say if they specifically are OK. Copy documents per se are fine, the creditor can rely on copies in court.

What help do you need? It's a bit unclear at the moment what you're asking of the forum.

I agree completely, it's extremely disappointing.

I would have thought that as a matter of ordinary construction if the contract says within 48 hours of delivery and then later says within 48 hours that will also be implied to mean within 48 hours of delivery otherwise it would have said within 48 hours of [another event]. Otherwise the clause is far too broad and could be taken to mean within 48 hours of the hundreth anniversary of the contract, or some such other ridiculous thing. I would expect a judge to construe the term in a way which makes sense and allows business efficacy.

However that's just my opinion!

The council will owe you a duty of care, the question is one of fact as to whether they've met that duty by keeping the bridge in a reasonable condition. It's difficult to say without pictures, reports etc. Why not try a no win no fee PI solicitor?

Can I use this as an oppertunity to file a completl;ey new line of defence now that I am in possesion of their replies to my orignial defence as filed?

/QUOTE]

 

You may well be seen as more than a bit cheeky if you're trying to change your defence based on the other side's replies. You really should plead fully at the outset rather than drip feed your arguments and see what response you get at each stage.

 

As a result, as has been said, you will likely end up paying the other side's costs of and incidental to your application even if it succeeds.

If the claim is only stayed then the stay can be lifted upon the application of either party.

By the way, if you've not yet had the case allocated how do you know it is a small claim?

Yep, that flexibility can look like an indulgence to the one party at the expense of the other. It's a difficult thing for the courts though as too strict an approach would defeat the point of the accessible SCT.

There's no reason why you have to wait except for, as I've said, normally the court will tell you when to do it and, more importunity, how. Also, if you disclose too early you take the tactical risk of your opponent knowing your case and then preparing theirs accordingly.

Usually the court will order both parties to file and serve all of their evidence not less than 14 days before the hearing. However it isn't unusual for parties to miss that deadline and the courts are usually very flexible with SCT cases.

What gezwee is referring to is cross-examination of your witnesses by the other side.

If it's not yet been allocate I would wait for the notice of hearing. Most courts will send the notice of hearing with directions to enable the parties to prepare for the final hearing, including as to evidence, and most will also include helpful forms and guidance for the content of witness statements which sounds like what you want to prepare.

Well, a very good result then!

Any costs?