Court claim from Link Financial. Please help.

[nicklea]

As pt2537 argues, strike outs are often dangerous territory, because if you fail, you bear their costs. Judges seem to be very generous to claimants against LiPs. Perhaps better to give them a bit more rope. If they fail after an extra 28 days, then their goose is cooked.

 

I'm afraid that I disagree with you here. If they fail after an extra 28 days then it is the OP's goose that is cooked as he/she still has no sight of the agreement and now has to put in a defence.

 

I would also say that pt's advice seems to be the opposite of what you are saying:-

 

If the Claimant cannot disclose then you cannot plead and this is where an application to strike out the case should be used in my opinion, there is no point filing a verbose defence which deals with everything and the kitchen sink where you dont even have the agreement they are reliant upon.

 

The CPR is there to help you, to help the court effectively manage the case and to set out what is expected from a claimant. it is unlikely that the court will refuse to order the Claimant to disclose to you the docs upon which the claim is based and the court will also take into account the fact that you will need more time to file your defence too,providing you ask for it!!

 

 

As donkeyb says, you MUST write to the court telling them that you have agreed an extension of time to file the defence. You may wish to refer to CPR part 15.5 when you do this.

 

However, this only gives you an extra 28 days. So what happens after that?

 

That is when, in my opinion, you should make the application to strike out. I would suggest that you do it before the 28 day stage, say after 14 days so that the court has it well before the 28 day cut off point.

 

If you have a read of the application it is asking for an unless order. It is giving the creditor a FURTHER 14 days - or you could put in 28 or any other number that you want - to provide the information and then if they don't then the claim can be struck out:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?159445-Getting-Them-To-Reveal-Their-Vitals.-Using-CPR-31.14-to-Your-Advantage&p=1771008&viewfull=1#post1771008

[nicklea]

Sorry Nicklea but im not sure i follow

 

Are you saying put a defence in without disclosure?

 

 

My point being that if you file a defence that fails to deal with the matters in hand then you will face costs of the amendments later, the general rule is that the amending party pays the other parties costs. I have to say i have the costs orders to prove this point on my desk.

 

 

Ignorance is no defence, the rules give you the requirements and the route if the party fails to disclose is an application for an order compelling disclosure. you will also get an award of costs due to the claimants breach of the rules CPR 31.15 is explicit on the time scales

 

 

CPR 15.5 also allows for an agreed extension of time for the Defence, if the Claimant dont play the rules then again you apply for a court order and get the court to tell the Claimant what he must do.

 

I'm sorry that I didn't make the point I was trying to make clear enough and it led to some misunderstanding.

 

I am not saying put a defence in without disclosure - quite the opposite. I was trying to highlight the issue that cpr15.5 only gives an additional 28 days and that if the creditor has still not disclosed the documents within that time then the defendant faces a real problem unless they take steps before the end of the extra 28 days to make an application to the court as you also say above.

[nicklea]

Here you go, it's in the stickies section:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?159445-Getting-Them-To-Reveal-Their-Vitals.-Using-CPR-31.14-to-Your-Advantage&p=1771008&viewfull=1#post1771008