Jump to content


Managing Agent leasehold Property 4th Court Claim same issue.


BlurredFX
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1462 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Given the timing, if you think you might have a counterclaim against the Claimant in this case, then you might as well put it forward in your Defence as you might be allowed have the opportunity to raise that counterclaim at a later date..

 

On that basis, I'll go with the simple version: £6k plus interest. Even if the Judge knocks it back, I can ask him if he will give a reason in his Judgement can't I? I can imagine he may choose not to, but if he does, it will come in handy of I have to chase Mortgage Company for the £6k - they can't turn round and say it's someone else problem if the Judge says otherwise. Am I right?

 

Do I need to submit my "evidence" (various letters) with the Defence? Or can they follow with the WS 7 days prior to the hearing?

 

I suppose I will have to add "references" to it, stating where the copies are of each letter I am quoting, if it all has to go in tomorrow. And then get it all to the Court, over an hour away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 427
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

On that basis, I'll go with the simple version: £6k plus interest. Even if the Judge knocks it back, I can ask him if he will give a reason in his Judgement can't I? I can imagine he may choose not to, but if he does, it will come in handy of I have to chase mortgageicon Company for the £6k - they can't turn round and say it's someone else problem if the Judge says otherwise. Am I right?

Yes, that sounds sensible.

 

Do I need to submit my "evidence" (various letters) with the Defence? Or can they follow with the WS 7 days prior to the hearing?

Your evidence should go along with the WS, not with the defence.

 

I suppose I will have to add "references" to it, stating where the copies are of each letter I am quoting, if it all has to go in tomorrow. And then get it all to the Court, over an hour away.

Evidence and references to evidence goes into the WS. You don't need to put any cross-references in the Defence.

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

Excellent, thank you.

 

So, provided I can email my defence in tomorrow, I should be able to save myself a trip into town. Spot on.

 

I will sent the Claimant the defence "signed for" via Royal Mail.

 

Super duper.

 

Blurred:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Not quite sure what to make of this. I've literally just opened it.

 

Dated 25th May

 

Upon reading a letter from the Defendant

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1.The Defendants application be relisted in accordance with the order made on the 31st March 2016 on (about a month) at 15:30pm with an elh of 30 minutes,not to he heard by telephone.

 

Dated 17th May 2016

 

Hmmmmmm. I'm going to go and think. The poor grammar is the Court's not mine btw!

 

Blurred:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got rid of the last names! Sorry about that.

 

See above for Court Order received today (post #379), and below is the Defence (or perhaps the "letter" the order refers to)

 

In the Matter of

Claimant: Post-RTM c/o Managing Agent

-v-

Defendant: BlurredFX

 

DEFENCE

 

The Parties

 

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the leaseholder of Blurred's Flat

 

2. Prima facie Post-RTM Company Limited appears to a special purpose company established by some leaseholders of the block pursuant to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. I understand that the Claimant claims to have established the Right To Manage on the 1th July 2014. The Service Charge was set at £82 per month. The Directors of this company are Fred and Bill

 

3. As of today's date, The Defendant has made payments, starting July 1st 2014 totaling £1640.00, which means the account is up to date. The Claimant confirms similar on p3 line 5 of the Witness Statement by Managing Agent.

 

4. The Claimant has failed to establish what role Pre-RTM Limited has in this matter.

 

5. The Landlord, since 2012, is New-LL. That company is not part of this claim

 

6. The Landlord, prior to 2012, Old-LL. That company is not part of this claim.

 

7. The Bank is the Defendant's mortgage company.

 

8. Managing Agents Various Companies all appear to be the same organisation, they are apparently representing Post-RTM Limited (the Claimant) as well as Pre-RTM, previously.

 

9. There are literally hundreds of companies, most of which seem to be residential property management companies, registered to the Claimants addresses on High Street in Blandtown. Managing Agents are not a small company fighting a rogue leaseholder as they seem to imply. They should be competent in that matter and should not require the liberties that a Litigant in Person might enjoy. Managing Agents are seemingly a very well resourced and established company managing probably thousands of dwellings around the North West. Post-RTM, for example, represents is 18 individual dwellings.

 

10. The Claimant is not the Freeholder referred to in the Title Deed, in the Lease, nor is he mentioned within the Lease and nor is he a party to it. None of the rights or responsibilities of the Landlord have been transferred to the Claimant prior to 1st July 2014

 

 

Previous Proceedings and Conduct

 

11. Judging by previous conduct, the Claimant appears to be claiming for monies he alleges are owing from before Post-RTM Company Limited was even incorporated.

 

12. In his Witness Statement, Managing Agent appears to quote widely from a letter I sent to some neighbours in 2010, taking many statements wildly out of context. This letter was an informal letter, headed "Without Prejudice", and as best the Defendant can recall, represented my best efforts to get the administration of our Leases done in a proper and efficient manner. At that point in time I may have been more inclined to take a certain viewpoint to facilitate the speedy resolution the obvious problems with our building. The Defendant has not checked the veracity of what Managing Agent says in his Witness Statement, as it should not form part of his claim, and the Defendant would dispute it's appropriateness for this matter.

 

13. This history in this matter stretches back to 2009. A timeline showing the course of events has been submitted previously, and is included. Briefly (points 10 - 16):

 

14. Managing Agents first started claim claim2009 on behalf Pre-RTM in 2009. Ultimately, following Managing Agents applying for stays, lifting of stays, and of restoring claims, he failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim and withdrew it. He informed the Court that the Defendant had settled the matter, when he had not paid a penny. During the hearing he also "purported" (the Judges word) to have sent certain documents, but neither the Court nor the Defendant received anything. The Judge also advised that at that point, if asked to adjudicate on costs, he would likely be awarding costs in favour of the Defendant.

 

15. In 2011, upon learning the Defendant was very seriously ill in Intensive Care, Managing Agent on behalf of Pre-RTM, started a second claim (claim2011), including dates from the first claim in 2009 (claim2009) that he had previously withdrawn. Due to the Defendant's inability to respond, Managing Agent on behalf of Pre-RTM won a Judgment In Default. Managing Agents then mis-represented himself to the Defendant's Mortgage company the threaten s146 forfeiture, and obtained a payment of £6k. The Claimant was not, and is not, the Freeholder, and as such as no right to apply for s146 Forfeiture.

 

16. In 2012, the Defendant successfully applied to have that Judgement set-aside (claim2011). When a hearing was scheduled to hear the Claimant's claim, and the Defendant's Defence and Counter-claim, the Claimant did not attend - despite paying the hearing fee, on threat of his claim being struck out. Claim2011 is currently adjourned, with either party at liberty to restore. The Defendant now has the evidence the Judge in that claim wanted to see in order apply for that claim to be finally struck out. It would have been struck out at the hearing, had monies not already been paid to Pre-RTM Limited.

 

17. In 2014, following questionable advice from Managing Agent, some leaseholders apparently decided to establish the Right to Manage which culminated in the formation of Post-RTM, whose Right To Manage allegedly came into effect on 1st July 2014.

 

18. The Defendant has never been invited to a formal AGM, nor has he been offered the opportunity to become a member of the company.

 

The formal Notice Inviting Participation must be in writing and in the prescribed form and must be served on all qualifying leaseholders who are not, at the time of service, members of the RTM company or who have not already agreed to be members. It must:

 

state that the RTM company intends to acquire the right to manage;

state the names of the members of the RTM company;

invite the recipient to become a member of the RTM company;

provide other information required by regulations:

the RTM company's registered number and the address of its registered office;

the names of its directors and, if applicable, the secretary;

the name of the landlord, plus the name of any other person who is party to the lease other than the leaseholders.

 

Nothing of the sort has been received by the Defendant, and he puts the Claimant to strict proof that he has fulfilled his obligations and that the RTM company is properly constituted.

 

19. In August of 2014, upon learning the Defendant was once again critically ill in the Intensive Care unit of Very Good Hospital, Managing Agent on behalf of Post-RTM Company started this (new) claim (Claim2013). The defendant successfully applied for a series of stay's, submitting lots of medical evidence to the Court.

 

20. Managing Agents/Post-RTM Ltd started this claim (claim2014), fully aware that claim2011 which was arising substantially on the same assertions, was in fact still active, but adjourned - and he was perfectly at liberty to restore that claim. It remains so.

 

21. The last stay for claim claim2014 (this claim) expired in Jan 2016, at which point, the Defendant applied for Summary Judgment/Strike Out.

 

22. A hearing was scheduled on the 31st March for the Defendant's application. Following a long hearing, the Court Ordered "The Claimant to file and serve a fully Particulars (detailed) Particulars of claim to set out the basis to the claim, entitlement of the Claimant to recover sums from the Defendant, detailing sums recovered and any outstanding payment plus other details which the Claimant may advise to address by 22 april 2016.". [sic]

 

Current Proceedings

 

23. Following a hearing on 31st March 2016, and despite the Court Order of the same date, the Claimant has failed to produce a fully detailed Particulars of Claim. He has failed to provide a consistent statement of account. In amongst the approximately 350 pages of unreferenced and unindexed documents he has submitted there appears to be many statements of account for different people, including different ones applying to the Defendant. There are hand-made amendments and crossings out. The Claimaint provides no practical statement of account "detailing sums recovered and any outstanding payment plus other details" as required by the order. There is approximately 350 documents, the purpose of which is not clear.

 

24. Despite the Claimants assertion at the hearing of the 31st March 2016, the lease is not defective.

 

25. The Claimant has provided a Witness Statement by Old-LL(the person), where he states Pre-RTM was formed "with the sole aim that once all units had been sold we would appoint directors so they could self-manage the repairs and maintenance obligations under the terms of the leases". The Defendant's Lease shows only Old-LL as a party to the lease, and there is no mention of Old-LL(the person), or Pre-RTM Limited, or of "self management" or anything similar. It appears to the Defendant to prescribe a typical Landlord/Leaseholder relationship. The claimant is put to strict proof as to what terms of the Lease Old-LL(the person) refers.

 

26. The nature of the Claimant's claim is far from clear from the approximately 350 unindexed and unreferenced documents he has filed and served. It appears the Claimant's claim rests upon a claim for service charges. It is denied that the Defendant is liable for outstanding Service Charges or that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant at all.

 

27. It is also curious that Old-LL(the person) has chosen to communicate in person, more than 12 years after he apparently abandoned his obligations to the leaseholders, and over four years after he Old-LL Ltd all previous correspondence from him, when he was Director of Old-LL Limited which held the Freehold asset, was done very correctly, and through a solicitor.

 

The Alleged Failure to Pay Service Charges

 

28. Additionally/alternatively, Managing Agent has sent various invoices and documents to the Defendant since 2006. The Service Charge demands did not contain the name and address of the Landlord as required by s47/s48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The Service Charge demands do not comply with s21(b) of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and therefore the Defendant is using his right to withhold payment. Should any valid demands be issued then any costs incurred more than 18 months prior are unrecoverable due to s20(b) of the LTA.

 

29. The new-LL, in his letter regarding Blurreds Development dated 11th January 2012 in relation to various matters about the building states "...although neither the previous freeholders and/or new-LL are `clients of Managing Agent Limited'", appears to directly conflict with Old-LL(the person) Witness Statement of the 21st April 2016 (12 years after he apparently abandoned his responsibilities).

 

30. In his Witness Statement, Old-LL(the person) states the Defendant "never challenged this authority and had made several payments during his ownership of his long leasehold...". The Defendant denies any payments have ever been made, and puts the Claimant to strict proof with this allegation.

 

31. In the Lease, the sixth schedule, item 4, states "In every fourth year of the term hereby granted to decorate the exterior of the buildings in the Estate and the Interior of all parts of the buildings used in common by the tenants of the flats".

 

32. To the Defendant's knowledge, there has been no such redecoration at all during his time (almost 10 years) as a leaseholder. Communal floors are very shabby, and the external rendering to Beaconsfield Court is falling away as a consequence of the neglect, for example. The flats to the upper floor have all reported various leaks, and there is currently scaffolding being moved around the building, seemingly dealing with emergency repairs required as a direct consequence of the Claimant's neglect.

 

33. The building continues to suffer from significant neglect, internally and externally. The lease has not been adhered to in terms of internal and external maintenance. Managing Agent confirms this is the case in his letter of 3rd August 2011, where he states "You will recall that we have written to you recently concerning the external decorating at Blurred's Development. Quotations were received and it was decided that as there were insufficient funds in the account it was not appropriate at the present time to ask owners for extra money...".

 

34. New-LL have expressed their concerns at the management of Blurred's Development. In their letter to the Defendant of 15th February 2012, New-LL write "...we do have concerns in that respect as the building is not being managed strictly in accordance with the Lease provisions...". The defendant has shared these concerns since he acquired his Lease in 2006.

 

35. Managing Agent and the Claimant have demonstrated their incompetence many times. The Claimant makes much of the dilapidated double glazing. Managing Agent have previously sent letters advising that Blurred's Development does not require planning permission for new windows. In his letter of 3rd August 2012 the Claimant writes "However, enquiries have been made with the local authority about replacing the wooden windows with U.P.V.C., Beaconsfield Court is not in the conservation area and therefore there is no restriction on replacing the windows with WHITE UPVC."

 

36. In 2015, Managing Agent on behalf of Post-RTM Limited were poised to place a contract, approximate value £70,000, with a third party to install dangerous and unsuitable uPVC windows. The Claimant proposed a style that opened over communal pathways. They were top hung and fabricated from uPVC, both of which are breaches if the planning regulations and conditions applicable to this development. Blurred's Development is an 18 residence block on the main access route to Very Nice Town Centre Conservation Area. It's shear size alone means that it is not subject to normal domestic planning rules that the Claimant appears to have assumed.

 

37. It was only when the Defendant contacted his local Councilor that he was able to establish that, due to our proximity to the Conservation Area and size of the building, we had restrictive covenants in the original Planning Permission. Having learned this, having disturbed his Councilors overseas holiday, the Defendant urgently contacted the Directors of Post-RTM Company and other leaseholders to inform them of his findings. The order was apparently cancelled, and financial disaster seemingly averted at the last minute.

 

38. In light of the above, it is denied that the Defendant indebted to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

COUNTERCLAIM

 

39. On 29th September 2011, the Pre-RTM, having gained Judgement in Default, wrote to the Defendant's Mortgage company, asking for payment of £6394.09 insisting that "...payment is now made in full by your client within 21 days, failure to do so will result in further action being taken and a Section 146 Notice being served on Mr FX"

 

40. On 27th October 2011, Pre-RTM sent a letter to the Defendant's Mortgage company stating "Further to your letter of 25th October, please find below the details of the bank account to make payment of the outstanding service charge and ground rent for the above property".

 

41. Pre-RTM Limited is not the Freeholder referred to in the Title Deed, in the Lease, nor is he mentioned within the Lease and nor is he a party to it or have authority to collect amounts due under the lease - including Ground Rent which is the Landlord's preserve. Indeed Old-LL had been making regular demands for Ground Rents, and New-LL continue to do so.

 

42. In his letter to Managing Agent on 11th July 2012, New-LL write "Finally, while we appreciate that you are not authorised to collect ground rent and indeed we assume you have not therefore been collecting ground rent can you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt that you have never collected any ground rent payments from any leaseholder in connection with this building..."

 

43. In light of the above, the a duty of care was owed to the Managing Agent and Pre-RTM Ltd not to issue incorrect claims for service charges and ground rent to the Defendant's mortgage company (The Bank), and not to misrepresent his position as being authorised to collect Ground Rent and issue s146 proceedings. As a result of "Managing Agent on behalf of Pre-RTM" conduct, as set out in in this Counterclaim and elsewhere, the Defendant has suffered loss and damage through an increased liability to The Bank and under the terms of his agreement with The Bank, has had to pay extra interest and fees.

 

44. Accordingly the Defendant claims £6394.09, plus additional fees and ongoing interest paid to The Bank, plus additional interest on such sum under section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 at such rate and for such period as the court thinks fit.

 

45. The Defendant also seeks off-set against future payments that may become due to the Claimant that are directly related to the neglect of the building by the Claimant. In this respect would request the Court to consider:

 

Purelake New Homes Limited v Stephen John-Gray LON/00AH/LSC/2008/0121

A landlord's neglect and delay in responding to complaints raised by a leaseholder regarding disrepair had given rise to additional service charges being incurred. In this case the LVT decided the leaseholder was not responsible for additional service charges.

 

Continental Property Ventures v Mr and Mrs White [2006] EWLands LRX/60/2005

The LVT considered the question of damages arising from the landlord failing to carry out damp proofing work under a guarantee. The LVT can take historic neglect into account.

 

Daejan Properties Limited v Griffin [2014] UKUT 206(LC)

An allegation of historic neglect can only provide a defence to a claim for service charges if the tenant can show that the landlord’s failure to repair a particular defect promptly has increased the cost of repairing that defect, or has led to consequential defects requiring repairs that would otherwise have been avoided, giving rise to a claim for damages that the tenant can set off against the liability for service charges. Such damages and set-off may include both the increased costs of repairs, and any general damages for inconvenience or discomfort if the premises were affected by a breach of covenant.

 

I believe that the facts stated in the Defence are true,

 

Signed,

 

 

 

BlurredFX

Link to post
Share on other sites

other version gone

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

  • 4 weeks later...

Please read Post 379, 380 is quite long and just there for reference for the very enthusiastic!!

 

Court Monday!! I am in hospital but will be attending.

 

How am I going to manage the costs issue??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Guys,

 

Hearing was this afternoon.

 

The hearing was supposed to be a re-hearing of my application for his claim to be struck out,

as per the order in post 379 (prev page).

 

It very quickly became clear the Judge was having none of it (my application),

or either of us (Me or the Managing Agent).

 

 

She gave Managing Agent a roasting,

asked where his POC was,

he explained he wasn't a solicitor and he didn't know what a POC was!

 

 

She told him he was a professional Estate Agent and he should know what a POC was.

She told him (ManAgnt) off because he was seemingly claiming for different amounts,

and she also told him off for making a date with a finite claim

when he was alleging in Court it was on-going charges.

 

 

The Managing Agent also said I was six months in arrears, which is a pile of tripe.

He told a few other white lies as well to deflect her fire on to me.

 

 

She (Judge) told him in no uncertain terms that he needs to get himself a solicitor,

but Managing Agent said they couldn't afford it (absolute lie),

 

 

she suggested he should go on the internet and look up CPR16.4.

(That's the "Contents of the particulars of claim" section to you and me)

- but he really needs a solicitor.

 

Then I got it in the neck

because I hadn't provided proof of the payments I have made to the post-RTM company.

 

 

I explained that it was already in the Claimant's witness statement,

and that it wasn't in dispute, but that wasn't acceptable!

 

 

She was looking for reasons to give me a hard time if you ask me!

 

 

It was a hearing for it to be struck out on the basis he can't get himself together

- and to my mind he demonstrated he can't

- but she was giving me grief for not submitting my own evidence

- though I did submit a Defence (which was epic - see post 280).

 

 

Maybe in hindsight wasn't the best thing to do and I should have just acted daft?

Instead of demonstrating there was a case to be argued

- but the outcome probably wouldnt have been any different,

and at least I can always point to my attempts make a resolution easy.

 

She didn't seem aware that there was different companies chasing me for different dates and amounts, and that there was two previous claims prior to this

- which is possibly fair enough considering what the Claimant had put forward, thinking about it now.

 

She asked me why I wasn't paying,

i said the Claimant wasn't entitled, but failed to add the rest of the reasons.

I wasn't really on form, I am still in Hospital and really quite run down.

 

It was a bit more back and forth than that, 45 minutes worth.

I just felt like I got a hammering I didn't deserve, but hey ho.

 

She said to me,

in her experience, the assignments etc., were definitely in order,

I explained that despite orders in other cases he had never produced a single one,

I agreed quite enthusiastically, when she said when he get's his POC in order it will be as clear as day.

 

 

She told me if I was messing around,

I was making a rod for my own back.

I wasn' bothered by that,

but she definitely had her angry head on.

 

Despite having half an hours reading time, she called us in ten minutes early.

She didn't seem to know, or want to know, the history, she just wanted to growl.

 

she made an order.

He has 28 days to submit a sensible POC,

and unless (an unless order she said) he does,

his claim will be struck out.

 

So there we have it -

another opportunity for him to get himself in order.

 

 

I am quite peeved it wasn't lashed out today,

he's had ample opportunity but she's told him to get a solicitor and try again!!

 

Not my best day in Court, but hey ho, no one's dead.

 

Blurred:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just a query on how to proceed from here, no case history required.

 

The claimant was ordered to produce a detailed POC by 4pm on the 25th July,

otherwise his claim would be struck out

- it said that on the order.

The Court nor I have received anything.

 

How do I proceed?

Do I need to apply for an order having the case thrown out?

 

I spoke to the Court today,

and they have issued an order that unless he pays the hearing fee within a few days, then his claim is struck out.

 

How may chances does he get

can I apply to have it struck out at this point

or do I have to wait for the Court to grind its way through it's administration?

 

Thanks,

 

Blurred:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonky?

Prob not using notepad

 

But we do know the site strips out line breaks and formatting codes

 

Doesn't matter

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

You can apply, I had same thing so next day I was at court with application to strike out/summary judgement, trouble is that if he is given another chance then you just waste time m money.

 

Have a good look at relevant CPR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, if he has failed to comply with an unless order the claim is already seen as struck out. What you should do now is apply for judgment to be entered in your favour, I believe the form is PF 84A but do check with the court.

 

One thing to think about is whether you want to try and ask for costs (which would involve extra effort in perhaps preparing a schedule of costs and attending a further hearing).

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

" I believe the form is PF 84A "

 

Isn't that for High Court only SP ?

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 OTHER

 

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

Only to be used after an Unless Order has been issued

 

 

Failure to comply/unless order

 

N367 Notice of hearing to consider why fine should not be imposed

N368 Order fining a witness for non-attendance

N370 Order of commitment or imposing a fine for insult or misbehaviour

PF 8 Standard “Unless” Order or other Order upon failure to file directions questionnaire (rule 26.3, PD 26 paragraph 2.5, and Form N181)

PF 84B Judgment on Request arising from failure to comply with an Order made under rule 3.5(1) (rule 3.5(2))

PF 84C Application for entry of judgment on failure to comply with an order made under rule 3.5(1) (rule 3.5(5))

PF 84D Judgment on application arising from a failure to comply with an order made under rule 3.5(1) (rule 3.5(1) and (5))

PF 85A Application for order arising on failure to comply with a condition imposed under rule 3.1(3)

PF 85B Order on application arising from a failure to comply with a condition imposed under rule 3.1(3)

PF 84A Request for Judgment on failure to comply with an order made under rule 3.5(1) (rule 3.5(2)

 

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part04/pd_part04

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 OTHER

 

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

Only to be used after an Unless Order has been issued

 

 

Failure to comply/unless order

 

N367 Notice of hearing to consider why fine should not be imposed

N368 Order fining a witness for non-attendance

N370 Order of commitment or imposing a fine for insult or misbehaviour

PF 8 Standard “Unless” Order or other Order upon failure to file directions questionnaire (rule 26.3, PD 26 paragraph 2.5, and Form N181)

PF 84B Judgment on Request arising from failure to comply with an Order made under rule 3.5(1) (rule 3.5(2))

PF 84C Application for entry of judgment on failure to comply with an order made under rule 3.5(1) (rule 3.5(5))

PF 84D Judgment on application arising from a failure to comply with an order made under rule 3.5(1) (rule 3.5(1) and (5))

PF 85A Application for order arising on failure to comply with a condition imposed under rule 3.1(3)

PF 85B Order on application arising from a failure to comply with a condition imposed under rule 3.1(3)

PF 84A Request for Judgment on failure to comply with an order made under rule 3.5(1) (rule 3.5(2)

 

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part04/pd_part04

 

The claimant was ordered to produce a detailed POC by 4pm on the 25th July,

otherwise his claim would be struck out

- it said that on the order.

The Court nor I have received anything.

 

Sounds like an "unless order" to me .......

OP, can you post up the details of the order to confirm?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the documents below should bring us up to date. Sorry for the delay... hospital.

 

The only thing I can see is that the Court seems determined to give them every chance possible.

 

To my simple mind it should be struck out, effective Friday 12th, - in fact it should have been done before that, but what do I know!? We shall see. Last time I spoke to the Court on Friday, they had received no payment.

 

The pdf's in the link below are the most recent.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3ixm3rxw6f3badu/AADlr7pToi3JBohBIVIYow1Aa?dl=0

 

I wonder what they will make of my (undetailed) costs and (vague) counter-claim?

 

I finally got out of hospital late on Thursday evening... so I am still quite shattered. After being in since 2 June, and enduring two bouts of brain surgery, a couple of unscheduled internal infections, a few teeth being pulled out... plus other stuff and all the emotional trauma that goes with it, and the fact I am still on artificial nutrition, it's hardly surprising! I am in one piece though!! It's a good job he decided to pick on me and not some poor soul who couldn't handle it...

 

Blurred:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Guys,

 

I've just spoken to the Court once again.

 

 

On the 17th the Claimant informed the court it was settled, and apparently the claim has ceased.

That is the sum of the information I managed to glean (verbally) from the kind lady I spoke to.

 

Partly out of curiosity, and partly because it might be relevant,

but is there a difference between a "case" and a "claim"?

Is the Claim the larger issue,

and the case the part of it that's in dispute or something?

I can't find the words.

 

 

The reason I ask is because the two orders linked above, the first refers to his case, and the second to his claim.

 

Do I still require for Judgement to be entered in my favour?

I don't think the Court hasn't made a Judgement has it?

 

 

Or does the unless order pre-date his withdrawing his claim?

I need something in writing tho, as evidence for my future claim against him.

 

 

How would I go about getting that?

I didn't get any notice last time he withdrew a claim.

 

Hello, if he has failed to comply with an unless order the claim is already seen as struck out. What you should do now is apply for judgment to be entered in your favour, I believe the form is PF 84A but do check with the court.

 

One thing to think about is whether you want to try and ask for costs (which would involve extra effort in perhaps preparing a schedule of costs and attending a further hearing).

 

 

I submitted a vague counter-claim and a claim for costs, given his terible abuses.

I suppose I would have to make an application if I wanted costs?

 

The counter-claim is a whole tin of worms, and I think probably fruitless.

 

 

My application for costs, I think is justified.

 

 

He started it, hasn't responded to anything, forced a variety of hearings, and achieved nowt, and ran away at the point of being forced to produce a POC!

 

Do I want costs? Yes, damned right I do!

 

It's looking good to me. Am I getting prematurely excited?

 

Blurred:)

 

I wanted to ask about the PF 84A,

but the lady I was speaking to wasn't giving me much once she said he had said the claim is settled.

I've never found a Court a good place for advice,

strangely lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Case and claim all one and the same Blurred

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 OTHER

 

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

  • 6 months later...

Hello Folks,

 

No case history required for this question... How can I obtain copies of the Claimant's correspondence with the Court? He withdrew his claim, but I have no confirmation of this.

 

I want to start the process of dragging them to Court to get my stolen money back, so I will need that document in my case.

 

I think I've asked the Court previously, but they were not exactly helpful. I think it is the Court I need to speak to, but I am unsure of what to specifically ask for.

 

Hope you can help.

 

Blurred:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the claim didn't get past allocation then there is no documents to request

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 OTHER

 

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1462 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...