Roxburghe chasing Hospital 'speculative invoice' - CLaim now issued

[aargh]

If you responded to the CPR 18 request then you have 7 days from that dated order to set a side on the grounds that you have responded.

 

Regards

 

Andy

wait there im confused, what is ths CPR 18?? everything i've recieved from them has been uploaded into this thread, i cant find anything about a part18, i've also checked all my scanned files, and can not find it there...?

[DonkeyB]

Sorry, they issued you with a CPR 31 request to name the driver.

 

Did you do this? If you did not know, you were entitled to say so. Did they send you a photo of the alleged offence?

 

If not, it looks as if they have applied to the court to force you to reply to a part 18 request. Did they ever send you a part 18 request? You should have had a chance to respond to one – if not, there may be an abuse of process.

 

If you did respond, then as said, you should apply to have the order set aside.

 

Part 18 requests have to be responded to promptly with a statement of truth.

[AndyOrch]

wait there im confused, what is ths CPR 18?? everything i've recieved from them has been uploaded into this thread, i cant find anything about a part18, i've also checked all my scanned files, and can not find it there...?

 

21st March they requested the information in your above scan/post, they state you have not responded hence their application.

[aargh]

found this which stats i refuse to give details, i said something like i wasnt the driver, and i was unware who is, like how they turn it around. lol

 

[aargh]

this was infact what i sent, still have it on the pc..

 

The Defendant denies he is indebted to the Claimant in any way. He is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver on the day alleged. The Defendant does not even hold a valid UK driving licence.

 

Therefore no contractual agreement between the two parties exists.

 

It is submitted the Claimant is abusing the court process and is embarking on a fishing expedition in an attempt to identify who they entered into an alleged contract with. The Claimant has simply made a claim against the registered keeper of the vehicle as a matter of course instead of the person with whom they actually formed a contract with. This is despite the Claimant being aware that the keeper was not the driver.

 

It is noted that the Claimant seeks payment for breach of contract resulting from not displaying a pay and display ticket The Defendant is unaware of how a valid contract could be construed that would owe the Claimant the amount he seeks since it cannot be a genuine reflection or pre-estimate of any loss incurred. The Claimant admits he is seeking payment under alleged breach of contract. It is trite law that sum for breach of contract which is not related to loss would amount to an unenforceable contractual penalty.

 

It is requested the claim be struck out under part 3.4 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules:

 

a) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim

b) the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process

 

could they have sent something, and i not recieved?? I did tell Rox you have moved, and maybe they did not tell ??

 

Even the court send everything to my new address

Edited July 10, 2012 by aargh

[AndyOrch]

Defence is fine aargh but they have evidence the car was there and parked at that date and time, so if you wasn't driving who was?

You could be subpoenaed to court under oath to give this information Im afraid.

 

Andy

[aargh]

Sorry, they issued you with a CPR 31 request to name the driver.

 

Did you do this? If you did not know, you were entitled to say so. Did they send you a photo of the alleged offence?

 

If not, it looks as if they have applied to the court to force you to reply to a part 18 request. Did they ever send you a part 18 request? You should have had a chance to respond to one – if not, there may be an abuse of process.

 

If you did respond, then as said, you should apply to have the order set aside.

 

Part 18 requests have to be responded to promptly with a statement of truth.

i did respond to something, was a court form. unsure if it is what you say, i did not recieve anything else other then what i have put onto this forum, i have everything on my pc, and on my imageshack account and can not see anything about a part 18.

[aargh]

Right - you can positively confirm/guarantee that you WERE NOT driving the vehicle on the date they claim.

 

Do you actually know who was - because they are going to force this issue in court - by having the Judge ask you !!

And i dont own a valid driving license, which they know, and it could of been 3 people. were talking about over a year ago..

 

and no i havent seen any evidence at all.

[DonkeyB]

Then it sounds like a CPR 18 request went to your old address. That’s why they have applied to the court to force you to answer.

 

Do you know who was driving? If not, can you tell us why? Do several people drive your car?

 

That could be a defence, and one they would be likely to be unable to overcome.

[DonkeyB]

How did they get your address then for serving the order? They would have provided it to the court, not the other way round.

 

So yes, that would be your defence. It’s straightforward. They cannot prove who was driving.

 

However, as you did not receive the Part 18 request, you should apply to have the order set aside, otherwise you will have to pay their costs.

[DonkeyB]

And you need to do this urgently.

[aargh]

Just tell me what to send an who to send ill do it now..

[DonkeyB]

Your reasons for set aside, on an N244, are:

 

1. You entered a defence to the claim and CPR 31 was not relevant until disclosure stage.

2. You did not receive a CPR Part 18 request from the claimant, and therefore had no opportunity to answer this at no cost to yourself. The claimant has provided no evidence that this route was followed in order to keep costs to a minimum. The claimant abused process.

3. The defendant has stated (s)he was not driving the vehicle, and has no driving licence. At least three people could have been driving the car at the time. Due to the time elapsed since then, the defendant has no recollection of who was driving.

4. Notwithstanding (3), the claimant has provided no visual evidence of a tort which could assist the defendant in identifying the driver, which the defendant believes should be a minimum expectation.

5. As per evidence submitted already, the defendant refutes the allegation and requests the court strikes out this claim which the claimant know knows to be spurious.

6. Costs.

[DonkeyB]

Hopefully Andy and others can add or comment on that.

[Al27]

Since you are looking to set aside and you have a fiesty judge, I would enclose an affidavit with your application: http://www.uk-psa.org/GenAff.pdf

 

It's free to get it sworn at the court and just puts another obstacle in front of GW. Everything is accompanied with a statement of truth, yes, but it's the strongest way of refuting their accusation that your 'refuse' to name the driver.

[aargh]

Since you are looking to set aside and you have a fiesty judge, I would enclose an affidavit with your application: http://www.uk-psa.org/GenAff.pdf

 

It's free to get it sworn at the court and just puts another obstacle in front of GW. Everything is accompanied with a statement of truth, yes, but it's the strongest way of refuting their accusation that your 'refuse' to name the driver.

And what do i enter in this form?

 

thanks for your help al27

[aargh]

Your reasons for set aside, on an N244, are:

 

1. You entered a defence to the claim and CPR 31 was not relevant until disclosure stage.

2. You did not receive a CPR Part 18 request from the claimant, and therefore had no opportunity to answer this at no cost to yourself. The claimant has provided no evidence that this route was followed in order to keep costs to a minimum. The claimant abused process.

3. The defendant has stated (s)he was not driving the vehicle, and has no driving licence. At least three people could have been driving the car at the time. Due to the time elapsed since then, the defendant has no recollection of who was driving.

4. Notwithstanding (3), the claimant has provided no visual evidence of a tort which could assist the defendant in identifying the driver, which the defendant believes should be a minimum expectation.

5. As per evidence submitted already, the defendant refutes the allegation and requests the court strikes out this claim which the claimant know knows to be spurious.

6. Costs.

would should i put as the claimant? east kent hospitals or mr sobell??

 

also going to need help filling this form out??? :s

[aargh]

any one able to help? as need to send this off asap

[slick132]

According to the Application against you, East Kent Hospital is the Claimant and/or Applicant.

 

Graham White are the instructed sol'rs.

 

And you are the Defendant or Respondant. Defendant in relation to a claim against you. Respondant in relation to an Application against you.

 

[aargh]

yes but i have no idea what else to put in the sections?

 

http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n244-eng.pdf

 

a have i included a draft?? do i want a hearing? what level of judge etc etc?? i have no idea, never ever filled out one of these..

[coledog]

Keep the N244 brief - use what DonkeyB has said. You can give a more detailed defence to the court later.

 

I cannot read your PDF I am afraid but yes you do want a hearing. What else are you worried about?

[aargh]

It asks do I want a hearing, how long, wha time of judge. Like I said never filled out so have no idea...?

 

 

http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=484

 

It's the top form

[citizenB]

As neither of those links work can you please give me the form number ??

[citizenB]

Ah.. it is a N244 application.

 

Hold on a sec..

[citizenB]

It asks do I want a hearing, how long, wha time of judge. Like I said never filled out so have no idea...?

 

 

http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=484

 

It's the top form

 

 

Do you want a hearing - Yes

Time is usually around 30 minutes to an hour.. so put 30 minutes.

 

In the bit where it asks if the time estimate is agreed with all parties - tick NO

 

You want a Judge to hear it - so put - Judge/District Judge

 

You will have to wait for further advice if there is anything else you want help with.. sorry..