Cohens and CCJ

[foolishgirl]

As far as I can see Hillards, you've done everything correctly (except perhaps the content of the N244 app that you haven't posted) & it's the court that have messed up big time.

 

Have you/applicant spoken to the Court Manager? Try & get hold of him/her, not just some desk clerk. If you can't, I suggest a formal letter of complaint to him.

 

It clearly says on your form that the case would be heard without a hearing & you double checked by phone so that is what you were relying on & you should have been able to trust that the information you were given was correct. I would tell him I was giving him the opportunity to rectify the matter before I exposed him to the mercies of my local MP & the press.

 

I have never heard of a case like this before but it is always wise to turn up at court when a date is set - just in case.

 

To take it forward in the immediate future, if you don't get any joy from the CM, I think I would be tempted to put in another app for a set aside of this order on the grounds that the court misinformed you.

[foolishgirl]

I am not going to join in a slanging match, consumeredge, but I agree with most of what gh has stated.

 

1. When you submit a N244 you are the applicant, the other side is the respondent, no matter what the description of each in the original claim/hearing. IMO the court will overlook misnaming & it may be nit-picking but gh is correct

 

2. In your experience, Cohens may not travel far from home but that does not prevent them sending 'their representative' from a local company of solicitors wherever in the country that may be

 

3. gh is correct in his statement that appeals can be expensive if you lose & that goes for CC level aswell as COA level as the loser has to bear the other side's costs which may be that of a barrister, not just Joe Bloggs solicitor from down the road

 

4. I think gh has been very supportative of Hillards (as have other CAGers) but Hillards has sought advice on behalf of someone else & he has not posted any docs (as far as I can see) which makes it extremely difficult to assess the case.

eg. gh is correct in that a Notice of Hearing should have been sent. I suspect it was as otherwise the 'lady' & Hillard wouldn't have known a date - hence my comments above re. attending court when a date is set.

We are all aware that relaying a story from someone else can be a bit like chinese whispers even if no-one intends it to be so. Therefore gh was right to be cautious in the advice he proffered.

 

You were obviously fortunate in the outcome of the case for your relative, consumeredge, & I am pleased you are proud of your result. However you must recogonise that not all cases are the same or text book & gh is just trying to play devil's advocate with an unusual situation for the poster's benefit.

[foolishgirl]

Perhaps the problem is not the advice being given, but unforeseen complications.

 

I agree Debbsy. Not only are consumers wising up to the tricks of the DCAs & the pitfalls of the court processes but the DCAs are becoming more aware too & the DJs seem to be taking a tougher line on the burden of proof. Unfortunately a lot of them seem to think it's up to the Defendant to prove the Claimant has no case & not the other way round.

[foolishgirl]

....asking him if that is the correct course of action. May as well ask him what's best to do, he should know.

 

Think you'll be lucky - court staff will not express opinions on your intended legal actions.

[foolishgirl]

As it happens, someone I have known for several years works at our local court and has been very helpful in guiding me in the course of action needed

 

Well you were lucky today then!