Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have got an  independent expert report which clearly states it is a manufacturing fault, which DFS have been made aware of. My point is that as a huge retailer of leather sofas with leather peeling  being a common complaint to me it seems evident they are aware it is a manufacturing fault on their side. Yet they play games with customers and worse of all try their level best to get the customer to believe that it is their fault due to oils or creams they are using. Even if one is to believe that every day creams etc can cause this damage then in any event the sofas are not fit for purpose. Surely they are merely playing a numbers game banking on the fact that most complainants will not follow through with legal action. Yet what about the anguish and distress they cause to customers in the process. To me this shows alot of contempt towards consumers and is clearly unethical.
    • I would if I could tobyjugg  Did the same run today over an hour quicker than yesterday, thats what happens when you know where to go and not just try finding places with the postcode as I was yesterday
    • Thank you, @lookinforinfo. I have updated the VCS v Ward case as below:   VCS v Ward     1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.   63 Airport byelaws. (2) Any such byelaws may, in particular, include byelaws— (d) for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;
    • Savers opening its Digital Regular Saver this month and adding between £1 and £50 in April, May and June will qualify. There will be ten prizes of £1,000 each. You can earn 3 per cent on the first £1,000. View the full article
    • Would you want your bank to know how many steps you've walked today or whether you got around to going for your weekly jog? But what if it was promising you vouchers or cash as a reward. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

rules for application for extra time in county court


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 820 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I took out a money claim to recover money owed.

The Defendant hired a Solicitor who sent and acknowledgement and applied for extra time, 28 days, to file a defence, I made no objection to this application and the court never put it in front of a judge for ratifying.

 

However, 28 days later when the date specified by the Solicitor on their sample order had passed, no defence had been filed, so I applied for the judgement to be made by default as no defence has been filed.

 

The Solicitor then called me (4 days past filing date) requesting further information so that they could begin to put together their defence... (BEGIN to??!) and I pointed out that I had already applied for Judgement as they were now out of time (CPR 12.3 (2)a "The Claimant may obtain Judgement by Default where acknowledgement of service has been filed but a defence has not been filed and the time for filing has expired).

The Solicitor said that the extra 21 days dont start until they are rubber stamped by a judge.

 

Today I received notification from the Court that the request for judgement has been returned by the judge for referral to a District Judge.

 

So, my question is:

 

Where extra time is requested and not challenged, is it accepted that the extra time is granted by agreement?

Or can this defendant solicitor continue to delay filing until they get a rubber stamp agreeing extra time?

 

My reading of the rules that where extra time is agreed 28 days would be given, would apply where no challenge is made to the request for extra time.

 

How do I challenge this and stop them late filing please?

Edited by dx100uk
space/spell
Link to post
Share on other sites

me thinks they are trying to pull the wool

you didn't agree to the extra time so it cant happen

you correctly went for judgement.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you just need to let your application for default judgment work its way through the process.

 

You are correct on the rules, save to note that the courts can and often do grant time extensions. Generally the court will err on the side of letting people file a defence rather than issuing a default judgment. If the DJ is minded to do that, there is not a great deal you can do to stop it unfortunately. If an extension is granted you would need to continue with the court process until it reaches its conclusion.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreement extending the period for filing a defence

CPR15.5

 

(1) The defendant and the claimant may agree that the period for filing a defence specified in rule 15.4 shall be extended by up to 28 days.

 

(2) Where the defendant and the claimant agree to extend the period for filing a defence, the defendant must notify the court in writing.

 

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part15#15.5

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...