HELP!Court action Shoosmiths/MElll***Claim Struck Out***

[AndyOrch]

Send to both...their copy unsigned and dont rush to serve theirs...wait if you receive their copy first.

[jax63]

Send to both...their copy unsigned and dont rush to serve theirs...wait if you receive their copy first.

 

So am I right in thinking theirs doesn't have to be with them for the 3rd Feb. guessing that's what you mean just checking.

[AndyOrch]

No theirs must be with the Court same date as yours...what Im trying to say is don't complete your until your receive theirs..(if you receive theirs) this gives you an heads up on how they intend to proceed.If they dont serve you their copy in time just submit yours as normal.If they dont serve you a copy of theirs at all dont serve them a copy.

[jax63]

Hi Andy

 

Having been just waiting for the court date to arrive I've been quiet,

but now even more confused, so wondered if you might be able to shed some light.

 

My court date was set for 23 June,

this clashed with a holiday that had already been booked.

 

Due to fear of going to court and knowing I didn't stand a chance, I didn't change the date.

 

Just got back from holiday to find two letters from the court,

 

one dated 19th June, 5 days before court date,

which was a judgement for claimant (in default)

saying I have not replied to the claim form,

which I did electronically and have acknowledgement ,

 

saying I have to pay forthwith, and checking experian have a CCJ on my file,

it doesn't appear to give me an option to pay in instalments

just says send payment to claimants solicitor.

 

The seconded letter is dated 23rd June (actual court date) is a general form of judgement or order, and says

"upon no attendance by parties it is order that the claim be struck out.

 

I'm now really confused,

 

why would the court make a judgement before the given court date.

 

Can you clarify this?

 

Don't know if I need to ask court if I can come to an agreement or the claimant.

 

Thanks

Jax

[citizenB]

I will try and find someone who can answer your questions. It certainly doesnt make any sense that you have two conflicting letters from the court.

 

Because the 2nd one appears to have gone in your favour in that neither you nor the claimant turned up on the day.

 

Like, you I dont understand why, as you had submitted a defence, that the court would award a Default judgment - I think you need clarification on this. I dont know whether a letter to the court would establish why, especially as you have proof that you did enter a defence.

 

It might not be until tomorrow when someone responds.. so dont worry if you dont hear anything this evening.

[citizenB]

I would say if the first letter was an error - which IMHO it must be because you had submitted a defence then it is the 2nd letter you should be grateful for as the claim has been struck out and you dont have to make any arrangement for repayment.

 

But wait while those with the legal know how come back to you.

[jax63]

Thanks for that, I did PM Andy who advised me to ring the court for clarification.

I am just going through all the paper work to see if I was supposed to make a further reply as they changed the paperwork halfway through admitting to making errors on the original. Even so that still doesn't explain the second letter.

I will put an update on once I've spoken to the court, would be lovely if it was actually struck out but realistically not likely

[citizenB]

Hi jax.. sadly the courts are way behind with their administration and it would appear there has been a classic cock up in this situation.

 

Please do update when you have spoken to someone at the court

[jax63]

Having just gone through the paperwork I think this May explain the first letter making judgement. In April Shoosmiths amended their particulars of the claim, , this was agreed and from the court I rwc'd notice of this saying also that I had permission to file and serve a defence, I read this as optional as I'd already served my defence so did nothing, I'm now wondering if this was mandatory! I've had so much stuff through it gets confusing, I thought my original defence was enough

[AndyOrch]

But that wouldn't explain the second letter as for the claimants case being struck out...it would be your defence struck out.

[jax63]

That's what I thought, I'm guessing it's an admin error, and they've put claim struck out instead of defence,as I said the CCJ is already shown

Ing on my experian report. I'm just cheesed off that they can make a decision prior to the date of the hearing, what's the point of giving a hearing date and then making judgement a few days before, seems mad to me!

Thank you both for your help I'll let you know what they say as it may be useful to somebody else.

[AndyOrch]

If the judgment was dated 19th June It really shouldn't be on your CRA yet ?

[jax63]

As soon as I read the letters I checked experian and it's there alright, I did think that they don't hang about, nothing on the file to say it was struck out which is why I think it's the 2nd letter that's wrong. I must say I'm surprised I haven't heard anything from Shoosmiths asking for the money!

[AndyOrch]

Seek clarification as advised jax and then we can either deal with the forthwith or celebrate the second:-D

[Ganymede]

That's what I thought, I'm guessing it's an admin error, and they've put claim struck out instead of defence,as I said the CCJ is already shown

Ing on my experian report. I'm just cheesed off that they can make a decision prior to the date of the hearing, what's the point of giving a hearing date and then making judgement a few days before, seems mad to me!

Thank you both for your help I'll let you know what they say as it may be useful to somebody else.

 

You mean the hearing that you couldn't be bothered to attend?

[jax63]

Just a quick update, I rang the court yesterday, but the person I spoke to was as confused as I am and has said I will need to write into the court for clarification. She did tell me that I should have resubmitted the response pack when Shoosmiths amended the POC, p"ermission to submit" actually means "must submit"

[AndyOrch]

Hi jax...

 

Do you have the General Order that confirms that from the court...its not always necessary to resubmit when further particulars are provided.

Your original AoS and defence still stands.

[jax63]

[ATTACH]52090[/ATTACH]

 

Hi Andy

I hope this is readable, this is the general form of judgement I received after Shoosmiths asked to amend their particulars, No 2 is what I thought was optional.

[AndyOrch]

Could you please convert it to pdf jax its far to small to decipher.

[jax63]

[ATTACH]52092[/ATTACH]

 

Hi Andy,

Is this any better? I am about to write to the court to ask them to clarify whats happening, re the judgement to pay and the claim struck out letter. is there any particular way I need to word this do you think?

thanks

[AndyOrch]

You have permission should you wish to...just because they had to resubmit and particularise their particulars does not always require an amended defence and as stated earlier your initial defence still stands.

 

Whats confusing is why was a further response pack served...they only had to submit a new PoC...did the claim number remain the same?

[jax63]

[ATTACH][ATTACH]52097[/ATTACH][/ATTACH]

 

I have just checked, the claim numbers remain unchanged. These are the 2 letters I received, that are causing the confusion..

[AndyOrch]

You state that they have registered the judgment already so error or not and the court are of no assistance so you need to set a side pronto.Go to the Legal library and click the link to N244.

 

Familiarise yourself with the application and then get ready to complete and set a side the judgment.

 

Jax if you could bring me up to speed why was the claimant requested to resubmit their particulars? You did AoS and submit a defence?

[jax63]

Hi Andy

My original defence was that I had not entered into any financial agreements with Britanica, which was who they entered on the original claim, their amendment stated that they had made an error in inputting Britanicca and wished to change it to EGG. having reread this paperwork the order they sought was for "the defendent to file her defence or full or partial admission within 14 days of service" this is where i think I made my mistake.

They have sent me so much paperwork it can be quite confusing.

 

I really do appreciate you taking the time to help me.

[AndyOrch]

Well the Notice of Strike out supersedes the judgment so obviously something is not right.I think only an application can safeguard you here but there will be a fee of £155 unfortunately but if you can lay blame with the court you should be able to recover the cost.