Question re- Northampton bulk clearing centre and CPR rules

[blind-as-a-bat]

In the civil procedure rules part 16 supplement, Para 7.3 it states-

 

7.3

Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and

(2) any general conditions of sale incorporated in the contract should also be attached (but where the contract is or the documents constituting the agreement are bulky this practice direction is complied with by attaching or serving only the relevant parts of the contract or documents).

 

Yet in the civil procedure rules part 7c Para 1.4 (4) the above is deemed not to apply in cases that are made through Northampton bulk clearing centre.

 

1.4

(1) Where the officer is to take any step, any rule or Practice Direction which requires a document to be filed before he does so will be treated as complied with if the data which that document would contain is delivered to the Centre in computer readable form in accordance with the Code of Practice.

(2) Data relating to more than one case may be included in a single document or delivery of data.

(3) CPR Rules 6.4(3) and 6.21(4) (copies of documents to be served by court) do not apply to any document which is to be produced by electronic means from data supplied by a Centre user.

(4) Paragraph 7.3 of the practice direction supplementing CPR Part 16 (statements of case), which requires documentation to be attached to the particulars of contract claims, does not apply to claims to be issued by the Centre.

(5) The practice direction supplementing CPR Part 22 (statements of truth) is modified as follows:

(a) a single statement of truth may accompany each batch of requests to issue claim forms and may be in electronic form,

(b) the form of such a statement should be as follows: ‘I believe that the facts stated in the attached claim forms are true.’, and

© the signature of the appropriate person (as to which see section 3 of the practice direction supplementing CPR Part 22) may be in electronic form

 

So that’s straight forward enough, and I can understand why, as all claims through Northampton are done electronically, and although the technology exist to make it possible to attach copy documents nonetheless, not everyone who may wish to use the service, will have access to scanning equipment.

 

But in part 16 supplement, Para 7.3 it could be argued that by its very meaning it implies that the documents should be in the possession of the person bringing the action, indeed it could be argued they have to be, to base the POC on anyway.

 

So if a defendant finds out the claimant was not in possession of the documents they would have had to attach to a claim under part 16 supplement, Para 7.3, if they had issued the claim through a normal court, yet filed it through Northampton so got away with not having the documents, could the defendant still contest that in doing so they where in breach of protocol, if not by the letter, by the principle inferred in the above? That is the claimant should be in possession of the documents before starting a claim?

[blind-as-a-bat]

bump

[creditcardmug]

Yes i see what you mean, in fact you are correct, if the claimant was not in possession of said documents at the time of making the claim (notwithstanding he does not have to serve them with the claim, using northampton), then there was in fact "no case for action" according to the CPR.

[bladeboy]

I had a 'claim form' from via Northampton bulk issue centre and the POC were a joke - even allowing for the restrictions of the bulk issue centre.

 

All they put on the form was 'And the claimaint cliams £XX,XXX'

 

no refernce to any account number, agreement, agreement date, default dates etc.

 

I would imagine that in a great deal of cases they issue the cliams with a hope that the debtor will do nothing and they, therefore, get judgement in default.

[creditcardmug]

More importantly in 7.3.1, it states the originals must be available at the hearing, but does this mean that they dont have to produce the originals if the claim was issued in the bulk centre.

 

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and

 

In other words have they escaped having to produce the originals at the hearing

[blueboy987]

I think you may be reading it too literally. My reading of it says that you don't have to attach the documents to the claim when filing online, but this doesn't remove the obligation to serve them on the defendant nor to have the originals at the hearing.

 

(4) Paragraph 7.3 of the practice direction supplementing CPR Part 16 (statements of case), which requires documentation to be attached to the particulars of contract claims, does not apply to claims to be issued by the Centre.

 

The above specifically only references "documentation to be attached to the particulars of contract claims" and doesn't mention "served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing" so I would assume that the latter still applies.

 

The extra rules are blatantly only in place due to the practicalities of filing a claim online and I'd have thought they should be read and implemented at such.

[plucked chick]

Hi,

picking up this thread - so does that mean if they the claimants only have a template default notice then they have not got the documentation to make a claim?

[blind-as-a-bat]

No they dont, in theory, as they cannot demand the full amount owed under the contract unless one is issued, so they must prove it was, a template does not prove it was sent to you

[blind-as-a-bat]

Thanks for the other replys too, i would hope blueboy987's interpretation would be the case, 7v 1.4(4) just rpeals the need to send documents whith the claim form, it does not recind 16 (7.3) in its entitraty, which is why it apeared to me as only done for practical reasons, hence the question should the spirit implied in 16 (7.3) that the claiment should be in posession of the documents, even though they do not have to send them.

[creditcardmug]

Yes i think blueboy must be right...it makes sense...hope so anyway

[will lliw]

interesting! Subbed

[popeye1]

Where the officer is to take any step, any rule or Practice Direction which requires a document to be filed before he does so will be treated as complied with if the data which that document would contain is delivered to the Centre in computer readable form in accordance with the Code of Practice

Does this mean that the claiments docs that he relies upon ie DN /NOA/CCA any doc on the POC are given in computer readable form when he submits his claim or at least they should be.

[citizenB]

I had a 'claim form' from via Northampton bulk issue centre and the POC were a joke - even allowing for the restrictions of the bulk issue centre.

 

All they put on the form was 'And the claimaint cliams £XX,XXX'

 

no refernce to any account number, agreement, agreement date, default dates etc.

 

I would imagine that in a great deal of cases they issue the cliams with a hope that the debtor will do nothing and they, therefore, get judgement in default.

 

This is exactly the outcome they hope for, bladeboy and too often they are successful which is why they continue with this practice.

[ekim777]

Hi All, Interesting reading! So for a claim to be valid, the documents referred to in the POC would need to be in the DCA's possesion prior to issuing the CCS? Am I correct in my understanding?

 

Ekim777

[blind-as-a-bat]

In principel, yes, in practice , god knows, but i will let you know in a couple of weeks, if the judge comments on it at all that is:rolleyes:

[popeye1]

As i see it Yes,even if claim is issued from N /bulk centre although at N/bulk centre they do not have to have Copies attached to the POC

However do they or should they provide elctronic/computer readable [,of which we could request copies of,] when they do issue from N/bulk centre

[ekim777]

Thanks for the info, The position then as I see it is that when you request copies under CPR, and they respond by informing you that quote "we have contacted the original account holder for copies of the documents, you have requested"

 

Then this is surely a blatant admission that the documents in the POC were not held, at the time of issuing the claim!

 

ekim777

[ncf355]

Well

 

I'm going to bring this up with the judge in my case with CL

 

This needs addressing, and in this day and age its totally unacceptable for HMCS not have the technology in place that would require the agreement to be scanned and uploaded

 

Such technologyhas been available to home users for at least 5 years (especially with broadband being common)

[militantconsumer]

Subbed

[creditcardmug]

Thanks for the info, The position then as I see it is that when you request copies under CPR, and they respond by informing you that quote "we have contacted the original account holder for copies of the documents, you have requested"

 

Then this is surely a blatant admission that the documents in the POC were not held, at the time of issuing the claim!

 

ekim777

 

Thats exactly right...one of the reasons they use Northampton is precisely so they don't have to file and serve documents in support of their claim, they hope and expect the claim wont be defended, and they simply apply for default judgement.

 

However the fact that they did not have the relevant documents to hand at the time of making the claim is a blatent abuse of the court process, and means they had "no cause for action" under the CPR

[angel_1]

subbing

 

as im still awaiting on my cpr 1st letter reply from bcard,,,,,, so always thinking will a court letter arrive instead from northampton!

laters all keep positive

 

angel x

[Sunshine54]

hi

interested in this as I have another thread going re my Egg Loan court proceedings and the solicitors, Drydens, acknowledged my CPR request for copies of the agreement etc almost a month after they had received it and all they say is that 'they have passed my request to their client and they are collating the info and will let me know when it's available'.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Subbing with interest BaaB - thanks for the heads up

 

Actually, quite independantly, I think we're paddling in associated pools here You may like in turn to sub to this thread, where I'm trying to get some ideas on how DCAs (having said they dont have the agreement) are then feel able to contact the OC for, and be given data about the borrower - I'm trying to work out how they can do that *if* the Borrower is no longer in Privity of Contract with the OC, as Assignment has taken place.

 

Welcoming any input from one and all, hit this link for the thread

 

PS, scroll to the bottom for the meaty bits

[Last of the Mohicans]

Human Rights Act 1998 Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)

1998 CHAPTER 42

 

6 Acts of public authorities

 

(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

 

 

 

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if—

• (a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or
  
• (b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.
  

(3) In this section “public authority” includes—

• (a) a court or tribunal, and
  
• (b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,
  
• but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.
  

(4) In subsection (3) “Parliament” does not include the House of Lords in its judicial capacity.

(5) In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(b) if the nature of the act is private.

(6) “An act” includes a failure to act but does not include a failure to—

(a) introduce in, or lay before, Parliament a proposal for legislation; or

(b) make any primary legislation or remedial order.

 

 

I dont know about you guys, but to me a failure of the Bulk Court to demand the evidence normally associated with filing a Claim and / or the Judge to demand evidence prior to making Judgement is an abuse at 6(1)(6)

 

 

Part II The First Protocol

 

Article 1 Protection of property

 

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans

[Last of the Mohicans]

"The Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a manner that is incompatible with a right under the European Convention on Human Rights and requires legislation to be interpreted compatibly with the Convention rights so far as it is possible to do so."

 

Now looking at Protocol 1, Article 1 of the ECHR with regard to property and the rights to "peaceful enjoyment of ones possesions..."

 

Found two where a lack of oversight by a Judge in entering an Interim and Final Charging Order based on a CCJ where no evidence of Agreement, Assignment and other CPR requirements have not been put before the Court would seem to straight forwardly contravene the European Convention of Human Rights.

 

Article 1 . Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his

Possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the

public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by

the general principles of international law.

 

 

Article 8 . Right to respect for private and family life

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home

and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of

this right except such as is in accordance with the law

Edited March 23, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans