Default Judgement Against Securitas Security Services (uk) Limited *** Counter Claim Struck Out ***

[BazzaS]

It isn't a matter for the public to decide : only for the public to ensure the person made the company aware & didn't conceal it from the employer.

 

Write (a factual letter, in neutral tone) to the HR dept. of the company.

If the employee declared the matter to them and they chose to employ him then it is no business of yours.

If the employee concealed relevant history then HR can investigate.

 

Tell them, not us.

[BazzaS]

I still don't think it's any of their business and should not be trying to get someone sacked out of spite.

 

People are allowed jobs and a life after being bankrupt. They've been "punished" and served their time and it doesn't sit right with me writing to HR. It's non of our business.

 

IF written to ensure the person had been honest, then it isn't to punish them for being bankrupt.

It is if the person has been open and honest with their employer about a relevant fact.

 

However, I suspect (as others seem to) that the OP is on a vendetta / 'mission', even if they claim to be acting 'for the good of the company's customers'

 

However, if the employee has been open and honest then such a letter won't cause them any harm : HR already know, and will file any such letter (or, even 'circular file' it).

 

If the employee is in a 'regulated' post with access to financial information, then the employer will have credit checked them (+/- a DBS or eDBS). If this is the case then the company will certainly already know, and the OP can't claim to be acting other than spite, when they shouldn't write:

a) as it wouldn't add anything,

b) as it'd be just plain wrong to do so.

[BazzaS]

Have they said why it is just/reasonable for you to agree a set aside?

 

Bearing in mind they are a large company who:

A) no doubt have a legal team they could have defended the case..... or

B) could have paid the judgment to prevent the CCJ showing on the register and sought an appeal / set aside at that stage prior to the judgment becoming enforceable (& showing on the register)

 

If they are threatening costs, point out that you are happy to have the court decide who is better placed to know the court's procedures & who has followed them .......

[BazzaS]

It depends.

What does the OP want?

 

They might get a bit more cash out of Securitas

(but will need to be careful how they discuss this :Highlight the inconvenience they have suffered and let the other side offer it!! ; the OP doesn't want to be accused of demanding money under duress....)

 

However,

the OP might decide that whatever additional sum Securitas is offering is paltry compared with knowing that Securitas has a CCJ registered against it as a record of their behaviour ......

[BazzaS]

Good for them. But acting in what? Unless and until they make an application for a set aside - which they could have done at any time and yet oddly haven't - there's no case. There's nothing in what you've told us that gives obvious ground for a court to agree a set aside and frankly the longer they leave it, having been aware of this for quite some time now, their chances of success become even smaller.

 

I agree.

 

CPR 13 lays out the 'ground rules'.

 

Eventually i issued a small claim against them in january this year for £1873.01p.

It was deemed to be have served on them by 1st Feburary 2017. The date for defence to be in was 15/02/17. However for one or another reason they never replied. I sent my request for judgement in and recieved a judgement against them.

 

OP then clarified

 

They have confirmed a claim form was recieved on time but was not passed onto the right department. .

 

Was this that they never acknowledged service?

Or they acknowledged service but didn't lodge a defence??

 

From the timings it suggests they never issued the AoS and then never defended.

 

So, it seems likely they might apply (if they do!) for a discretionary set aside (CPR 13.3) rather than a mandatory one (CPR 13.2).

 

Vauban has hit the nail on the head regarding a discretionary set aside

frankly the longer they leave it, having been aware of this for quite some time now, their chances of success become even smaller.

 

So if they do try for a discretionary set aside, you don't have to agree, and one ground for opposition would be them not acting "promptly"

[ CPR 13.3(2) ]

 

With the judgment being from early March (or before), you have a good case to state they haven't acted promptly, even if they say "but we were trying to obtain a set aside by consent, first"

[BazzaS]

Then the most important part is do they have a defence against the particulars of claim that were issued.

 

I'm not sure Securitas is that bothered by having a defence / whether they have to pay the claim.

 

I suspect they are more bothered by having a CCJ on the register.

 

In that regard, whilst getting the claim set aside and them having a successful defence would be the best possible outcome for them, it may well be that what they are angling for instead is either:

a) judgment set aside by consent (even if they then pay the judgment sum or more under a Tomlin order) or

b) judgment set aside (not by consent), claim still lost by Securitas, but judgment sum for the reheard case paid before it reappears on the CCJ register.

 

If what matters to the OP is the CCJ remaining on the register ; they should oppose any set aside application using the grounds set out previously.

 

You can oppose the set aside application, when it is made.

 

Precisely.

[BazzaS]

A set aside applicationI is now live. This was checked this morning. All i have been told is that it is a application to set aside.

 

Post up the application (redacted of personal details) when you receive it.

It will be interesting to see if they are trying to claim a mandatory set-aside (unlikely!), or a discretionary one, and what grounds they claim.

It will also be interesting to see if they are trying to claim their application was made 'promptly', or if they have not made any comment on this, as this is one of the grounds on which you could oppose a discretionary set-aside.

 

If having a CCJ on the register is hurting them commercially, what they are aiming for might be to get the judgment set-aside so they can have the case heard ...... they might not be expecting to win (though they'll say they are, of course), but as a way of getting the judgment off the register, case reheard, and if they lose then judgment settled before it goes back on the register??.

 

If this is the case, the commercial cost to them of a CCJ on the register may be significantly more than the legal costs they might incur, and an indicator of this would be if you find them wheeling out all sorts of legal big guns for what seems a relativity small (small claims track) county court claim. (They are, of course, entitled to spend whatever they like on professional legal representation, even if they stand no chance of recovering that from you regardless of if they 'win' or 'lose' (due to it being on the small claims track) ... I just highlight it as a marker of what their intent may be .........)

[BazzaS]

See my post of 26th May

It depends.

What does the OP want?

 

They might get a bit more cash out of Securitas

(but will need to be careful how they discuss this :Highlight the inconvenience they have suffered and let the other side offer it!! ; the OP doesn't want to be accused of demanding money under duress....)

 

However,

the OP might decide that whatever additional sum Securitas is offering is paltry compared with knowing that Securitas has a CCJ registered against it as a record of their behaviour ......

 

So, it still depends what the OP wants as "best outcome", bearing in mind the possibilities:

A) The money they have recovered already, and the CCJ showing on the register? (Oppose any set aside application, successfully)

B) Potentially no more money, the CCJ off the register, but the case still a matter of public record (OP opposes the set aside unsuccessfully but wins the reheard case)

C) having to repay the judgment sum received (OP opposes the set aside unsuccessfully and loses the reheard case)

D) set aside successful, OP gets more money through a Tomlin Order (where no CCJ is on the register, and there may or might not be a confidentiality agreement)

[BazzaS]

If they have applied (without notice), and applied for their order stating they don't want a hearing (the judge to make a decision based on the papers), the judge's first decision is if they should be making their decision without you being able to have input into the process.

 

Your input might not make any difference if they (successfully) applied for a mandatory set-aside, so a decision based purely on their application is a realistic possibility.

If their application was for a discretionary set-aside the judge COULD make a decision without a hearing, but this is much less likely : it could be challenged as not being "proportionate justice"!

 

If you didn't receive notice of a hearing, you could apply to have the (set-aside) order itself set-aside.

Where you might later be relying on 'promptness'

(See Regency Rolls Ltd & Anor v Carnall [2000] EWCA Civ 379, Simon Brown LJ, at 45)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/379.html

Any such application by you should also be made 'promptly' (within 7 days!)

[BazzaS]

How so?

 

They are entitled to make an application.

The court can decide if it should succeed.

 

Now, if they make a false statement in order to try to get their application to succeed they'd be opening a can of worms, but if they stick to facts : what can of worms?

[BazzaS]

Why do you have to wait until later?

 

It might be one of those "It is Top Secret, I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you" drama moments ..........

[BazzaS]

Order has been returned to the defendant as paperwork is missing from the application to set aside by judge.

 

'Order returned'? or 'Application returned'.

 

It seems their "top flight legal team" can't 'get their ducks in a row'!

[BazzaS]

How do you target your objection when you haven't seen the applicant's reasons that request set-aside?

[BazzaS]

not relevant to this matter and you would be advised to stick to just the facts of your case. Repeat the above to a court in furtherance of your claim/defence and you may be asked to furnish absolute proof of this and you wont be able to. What you know from either your personal action or hearsay and what you can prove are 2 different things so stop making these kinds of comments or you may well just help them.

 

I don't know what you are replying to (as there is no post quoted and it looks like at least one post has been edited / deleted), but if the OP has a letter from D or their solicitor stating that the D received the claim, that isn't hearsay (if demonstrably from D e.g. on headed paper)

 

If D made an application based on "not having received the claim", the court can consider evidence that weighs against that, but you are correct that it would need to be in a form (such as letter on headed paper) that would allow the court to assess how much weight to give to that evidence.

 

You are further correct that the OP should stick to facts, not emotion or supposition. "I have a letter from the D that states , and have exhibited this" is a fact.

[BazzaS]

A letter was received from the defendants solicitor. This stated that they had received a claim form and it was passed onto the wrong department and misplaced. This was on headed paper by a well known franchised company of solicitors. I will reproduce this once this is over or am I safe to reproduce it here ?

 

The only place it needs to be produced is in court, and even then, only if D makes an application to set-aside, AND is basing that on "the claim wasn't received". Then it is relevant, to refute that statement.

 

You needn't reproduce it here, (now or later).

What would doing so add? you don't need to persuade us that you have received such a letter.

[BazzaS]

A post has been deleted. Uncle Bulgaria is right in saying it was example of how admin work at local levels and if this is what a company is at branch level. Then what is it like at management or corporate level ?

 

Irrelevant to your court case. Don't focus on distractions.

 

You've been advised this many times by multiple respondents now.

[BazzaS]

Question is why do companies ignore thier employees or even ex-employees ?

 

Still irrelevant to your claim. Their actions are done now, you can't make them change, only they can choose to do so as a result of events.

Focus on your case, trying to work out why they have done what they have done or trying to make them change (other than doing so by beating them in court) is wasted time / effort.

 

Why not start a thread in the Bear Garden where you can rant about how unfair they are, and leave this thread focused on the case........

[BazzaS]

In their application to set aside they have stated that they were unaware of the judgement. They also claim they had no contact from me and they had no contact from the enforcement agents. However they managed to make a payment to the enforcement officer the day before they arrived to execute the writ. Also they claim that BBC cameras were also following the enforcement agents .

 

 

Have they put these in their application? If not : irrelevant.

If so, surely they still don't influence if they have made their application "promptly" ; and isn't that they key point on which you are basing your request that the court deny their application...

 

Don't get distracted by irrelevancies, and try to focus the court's attention on the key point(s) of law.

[BazzaS]

Have they put these in their application? If not : irrelevant.

 

Yes they have. Just reread what you have asked.

 

Good, as if you know what is in their application you have a copy of it to post up ......... so that a rebuttal can be derived (primarily focusing on the promptness [or lack thereof!] of their application......? )

 

surely they still don't influence if they have made their application "promptly" ; and isn't that they key point on which you are basing your request that the court deny their application...

 

Don't get distracted by irrelevancies, and try to focus the court's attention on the key point(s) of law.

 

New hearing date received for set aside application. See what happens.

 

When is it listed for?

[BazzaS]

When are you planning on posting up their application?

Has any order been made regarding when your response needs to be in?

[BazzaS]

In their application to set aside they have stated that they were unaware of the judgement.

 

Remind me : what have you received that shows what is in their application , and when did you receive it?

[BazzaS]

Since they are a large firm, using professional legal representation, with a background of seeking a set-aside of a default judgment, there is only so much latitude they'll get for trying to state “oops, there was a procedural slip in our dealing with this, it is only just that we get another chance.

 

They got their chance with the set-aside. If they then clanger’d again, that is their look out, even more so given they had the choice of getting professional help, and were legally represented at the hearing.

 

“Never say never”, but I can’t see how they can re-open this. The courts dislike endless re-litigation even where it is a litigant in person claiming it is unjust for them to suffer due to a procedural error. For a large company with a legal dept. and who has retained counsel : they’ve had their second bite of the cherry.

[BazzaS]

Their obligation is to represent their client as best they can.

Do you know if they are at fault, their client is, or both.

You won’t be able to ask them (well, you can ask but due to client confidentiality they won’t answer!).

 

Yet, even if they have sent you letters / mails you disagree with, they may just have been doing the best they could for their client (it isn’t unheard of for clients to put their solicitor in a bad spot and insisting they send you letters trying to get you to back down...... they then have to do so provided they don’t actually contravene the SRA’s rules).

Do the letters breach the SRA code of conduct?.

[BazzaS]

I suspect solicitors do know the meaning of libel, and all about the Defamation Act 2013, too.

 

That won’t stop them acting on their clients instruction to “send them a strongly worded letter, threatening action”, if (when they remind the client : if it is truth / reasonably and honestly held belief, an action for defamation won’t succeed, do you still want us to send the threat of a claim?), the client still insists ......