Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm on a Covid run all this week, for some reason I thought it would be quite easy, starts in St Andrews then Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld then Glasgow over 200 miles. I drop of empty Test boxes and collect the ones that are ready to go to the Labs for results.   Every Testing Station today said they had not been very busy over the weekend, it was quite nice weather over the weekend which is more than likely the reason for the lack of numbers.
    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
    • I'm ready to reject Hermes offer and issue the letter before claim. I've registered on the MCOL website and filled in my claim with the below particulars.   Should I tick the box to send the particulars directly to the defendant?   Should I also tick the box for the right to claim interest. If so do what date would I put for when the money became owed,  what is daily rate of interest up to the date of judgment?    Thanks again      
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Producing Documents at Summary Judgement Hearing


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3917 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I want to get the other side to produce various documents in court, at a SJ hearing. I've read that unless I challenge, or ask for documents to be produced, then it is assumed I am agreeing to their accuracy and authenticity - which in this case I certainly do not agree with.

 

What form would I submit to the Court to request the other side bring various, original documents to the hearing?

 

Thanks for any advice / information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the correct procedure is:

you should request the forms from the other party using standard disclosure rule 31.14.

If they fail to produce maybe request to inspect the original using 31.15

If that fails use n266 to request the court to order them or their claim be struck out

 

Be very aware, if they have issued proceeedings these rule apply but there are time limits you must not miss

 

NTTF

Link to post
Share on other sites

A date is set for a Summary Judgement hearing, so they have issued proceedings for sure.

 

I don't need to see these documents as such, I need them brought to court, so is the N266 the correct form to use? Also, crucially, do you know what the time limits actually are?

Link to post
Share on other sites

N266 is the form to request the court to make an order, I believe it would be 'fair' to give the otherside 7 days to comply but maybe best to agree in advance to an adjournment if they need more time to produce.

 

Not something I am sure of so maybe best to get other caggers opinion of that

 

the time limits I referred to were for you to do things

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that's what I meant, what are the time limits for me to do things?

 

I assume they mean any requests from me for the other side to produce documents etc. must be submitted a certain amount of time before the hearing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you acknowledge service of the original claim, in time?

did you enter a defence, in time?

If you did not they will get judgement by default.

What docs do you need to see? were they mentioned in their poc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I acknowledged in time, and filed a defence in time, albeit an embarrassed one.

 

Their PoC gave no cause for action, no date for the agreement, no date for a default, stated the agreement was for a 'charge card' that was 'exempt under the exempt orders Act' (words to that effect). I was at the time paying a monthly dmp on a credit card that was regulated by the CCA 1974 and I couldn't defend against an agreement I didn't have. The claim was stayed, nothing happened for months.

 

Then out of the blue I get served with papers for a SJ hearing, which a Court has granted them, still a few months away. I've never disputed the debt, seems to me they just got fed up with the dmp payment and have taken me to court. Of course if I lose the SJ hearing they will be entitled to costs as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I acknowledged in time, and filed a defence in time, albeit an embarrassed one.

 

Their PoC gave no cause for action, no date for the agreement, no date for a default, stated the agreement was for a 'charge card' that was 'exempt under the exempt orders Act' (words to that effect). I was at the time paying a monthly dmp on a credit card that was regulated by the CCA 1974 and I couldn't defend against an agreement I didn't have. The claim was stayed, nothing happened for months.

 

Then out of the blue I get served with papers for a SJ hearing, which a Court has granted them, still a few months away. I've never disputed the debt, seems to me they just got fed up with the dmp payment and have taken me to court. Of course if I lose the SJ hearing they will be entitled to costs as well.

 

Hello there dp77,

 

The claimant has made an application for the SJ because he believes your defence has no real prospect of success.

 

The claimant should provide you with the documents that he is going to rely on at least 7 days before the hearing.

 

You now need to defend/resist this application by undermining the claimant's cause of action with a legal argument to your defence and preferably some documents that you can rely on.

 

If you do have any doc's that hold you in good favour, then you should provide your opponent with a copy of them also at least 7 days before the hearing.

 

Can you post up your defence that you filed to the Court against this action please.

 

Do you have a default notice?

 

Have they produced an agreement at all?

 

 

Kind Regards

 

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...