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

[unclebulgaria67]

Surely it would better for their Solicitor to negotiate a deal that works for both parties.

 

CCJ removed by consent if, claimant keeps the judgement money plus gets £x as a ex gratia amount for inconvenience, HCEO retains their fees etc.

 

It could be resolved quite quickly with a bit of commonsense and save Securitas money.

[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"

[ericsbrother]

you have been sent a copy? if not how do you know?

This doesnt mean that they will get the set aside though and even if they do they will then still have to explain everything all over again or admit they owe the money.

It all looks like an attempt to clean up their records because no-one wants to allow them credit. Plnety of big firms in the constriction and services industies wnet under not long ago and most of them had big contracts with councils but collapsed because they couldnt pay small bilss in hard cash and yours is a bit like that.

A form has been lodged with the county court notifying a solicitor is acting on behalf of Securitas.

[letsmakeamark]

This was discussed and this side of the picture was shown.

They will have none of it.

 

To make sure everything was dead i phoned the court and asked them.

They confirmed that a solicitor is now acting for them and the notice was recieved recently,

.

A claim form was issued and served on the defendant at their business address and not registered address.

 

 

This according to them was received and someone instead of allowing a member of staff to send the acknowledgement off . They were told to wait for somebody who was on holiday.

 

 

Then for some reason they cant explain why the file went to the wrong office.

 

 

It sat there until they recieved a letter from the h.c.e.o .

 

 

They couldnt match my details once the h.c.e.o had contacted them as they didnt know who i was.

This is despite me notifying thier hr department of the judgement.

 

 

They paid the hceo and then decided to find out where the claim had come from.

 

 

It then went to thier solicitor who wrote to me and then things moved on from there.

 

 

The calls i have received were from thier credit department.

Someone promising to teach me a lesson who is in Birmingham

Personally i couldnt give two hoots about it as it was done and dusted.

 

 

Firstly they completely ignored all correspondance from me.

I had to do the chasing around.

 

 

secondly they were so screwed up they couldnt handle a claim form.

 

 

Thirdly they did not respond to my email to them regarding the judgement.

 

 

Fourthly they admit they never knew who i was this despite the claim form having a reference number on it and correspondance etc attached to it.

 

 

They then change strategy and start playing big brother.

 

 

Bloody well annoying.

[unclebulgaria67]

You can oppose the set aside application, when it is made. On the basis that the court claim was sent to a business address you had dealings with. They received it and had opportunity to defend it. Then the most important part is do they have a defence against the particulars of claim that were issued.

[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.

[letsmakeamark]

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.

 

 

 

Precisely.

 

The way I am looking at it is. 1 Nobody was interested in any correspondence before and after a claim form was issued. 2 Nobody gave a squat when I contacted them about the judgement. 3 Rather than talk to me the first i hear of this is through a intimidating letter from Thier solicitor. 4. Things would have not gone this far if they had taken note of what was being said before hand and dealt with this before it got to the issue subject. If this was me I would have been on it like a fly.

 

I have put a few issues across to then. They have not taken a bit of interest in it. You know how it goes. Hence why I think this is done and dusted. However for one reason or another they have now sprung into action. Where were they before this ?

[ericsbrother]

in short, there is no live application for a set aside.

Everyting else they say is just hot air. do not communicate with them other than via the courts if that actually arises.

[letsmakeamark]

Securitas have now advertised for a employment lawyer.

 

http://portals.securitas.uk.com/vacancies/job%20descriptions/JD0085%20Employment%20Lawyer.pdf

[ericsbrother]

I would suggest that you look forward and not backwards. I doubt if this is entirely a new post so nothing can be read into it

[letsmakeamark]

I am looking to the future.

[letsmakeamark]

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.

[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 .........)

[obiter dictum]

Am surprised they have not offered a financial incentive not to oppose the set aside applcaion

[ericsbrother]

these large companies think they can bulldoze over the small people and so do not take the matters seriously in that respect.

 

 

They dont expect you to challenge this application so that should be the first thing you do when you get the opportunity.

 

 

try and stop them from having it decided on the papers so you get the chance to say your piece as a judge will apply weight to the perceived honesty of the witness.

 

 

It will also add to their costs so they might want to offer you a reason not to resist.

Bear in mind how much it will cost them to continue and decide if the moral victory you have outweighs the financial advantage you can gain by settling.

 

 

They will undoubtedly ask for a non disclosure agreement, generally by you signing one rather than asking the court's permission to formalise it.

 

 

Normally this means you get more money for losing certain rights to humiliate them in public so again, morals versus cash dilemma

[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)

[letsmakeamark]

Appaently the application was sent to salford the county court centre. I will get a copy of the application once the judge looks at it and decides. I will then get a copy of the order and judges decision and also alist of options. They have hired a barrister and the have a well known franchised solictor working for them. I have already put my options over to them but they will not listen. I have been told it is a commercial nightmare for them once news gets out that they have a judgement against them. Dont ask how i know. Will let you know once this ends.

[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!)

[letsmakeamark]

What i dont think anybody has realised is that proceeding with this application the company are opening themselves to a whole new can of worms.

[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?

[letsmakeamark]

I will explain but at a later date.

[Ganymede]

I will explain but at a later date.

 

Why do you have to wait until later?

[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 ..........

[Ganymede]

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