Backdoor Link CCJ - old Barclaycard debt - Default Judgment set a side Sanctions imposed. **STRUCK OUT**

[AndyOrch]

Absolutely...so lets see if they have any success with their application before we we consider what's next 

[dx100uk]

uploaded supposed agreement paperwork is totally pants, typical of link/kearns.

the chief kidders of judges.

[AndyOrch]

Keep in contact with the court as the hearing of the 7th May not happen 

Draft Order request

Quote

The hearing set for 7 June 2024 continue

 

 

.

[LouLouDev79]

Should I just keep ringing the court then to see what happens (I am usually on hold for over an hour!) or will the court write to me to confirm?

I thought they would have written to me to confirm it had been struck out?  

[jk2054]

you can call the number below and wait time shouldn't be more than 30m.

0300 123 5577

 

 

[AndyOrch]

5 minutes ago, LouLouDev79 said:

Should I just keep ringing the court then to see what happens (I am usually on hold for over an hour!) or will the court write to me to confirm? I thought they would have written to me to confirm it had been struck out?  

I personally would just attend anyway on the presumption it is happening ...save you stress of checking.

[LouLouDev79]

thank you 

Do you have any idea of how long roughly it takes for a court to consider a relief from sanctions application? 

I notice they ticked a box saying they wanted a 10 min hearing for it - would I be required to join that?

[AndyOrch]

Well it will be given the priority attention given the hearing is close its bad form that the court did not inform you that sanctions had been applied and the claim struck out. Lets hope they inform you this time if the hearing is to proceed. 

Their application involves a remote hearing and no you would not be expected to participate.

[LouLouDev79]

Thank you, I will keep you posted!

[LouLouDev79]

I have just spoken to the court and they advised that it hasn't been struck out. 

They said it was passed to a judge on 1st May  (the day after I sent my bundle) and they are still waiting for a decision

- she said it was odd that the solicitors had applied for a relief of sanctions when it hasn't even been struck out yet!

[AndyOrch]

1 minute ago, LouLouDev79 said:

she said it was odd that the solicitors had applied for a relief of sanctions when it hasn't even been struck out yet!

   Well it is Link so the court should make allowance's

[jk2054]

It may be that they are applying to try to stop it being struck out and then having to pay for it back in and costing more time.

They may also just think it has/will be struck out so they are applying to speed things up after that.

seems like a timesaving exercise to me but they are also technically wasting money so I wouldn't bother.

The only problem is that the judge will likely see their application when he/she reviews the file so you may find that nothing happens in terms of strikeout/in and it stays the same.

Go with what the court have told you unless you hear something else.

Please do not not go because you think the court will strike it out not worth the risk! 

 

[LouLouDev79]

That makes sense, yes I will make sure I attend on the day unless I hear otherwise from the court!     

Am I right in thinking that if it is struck out, then they wouldn't be able to re-start it as it is now statute-barred? 

[AndyOrch]

Well sanctions must have been imposed somewhere along the line and you dont make an application in anticipation unless they have been imposed.

They were late in re submitting their particulars...you referred to this in your statement

From their statement in support of their application 

Quote

6. The Court then set directions under an order dated 13 February 2024. Within that order,
the Court issued additional directions including particulars of claim and copies of various
documents to be filed and served before 3 April 2024.
7. The fee earner with overall conduct of the matter did not comply with that direction, for
which I sincerely apologise to the Court and the Defendant.
8. The Claimant seeks relief from sanctions pursuant to CPR 3.9 and the Denton
principles.
9. CPR 3.9 states:
(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, practice
direction or court order, the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to
deal justly with the application, including the need –
(a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and
(b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
(2) An application for relief must be supported by evidence.

Quote

15. I therefore respectfully request that the hearing be relisted or alternatively seek relief
from sanctions for the reasons stated above. All parties are ready to attend the hearing,

 

3 minutes ago, LouLouDev79 said:

That makes sense, yes I will make sure I attend on the day unless I hear otherwise from the court!      Am I right in thinking that if it is struck out, then they wouldn't be able to re-start it as it is now statute-barred? 

Correct unless they make a further application 

[LouLouDev79]

very strange in that case,

as the lady I spoke to at the court said it hadn't been struck out and was pending a decision from the judge 

[jk2054]

If its struck out they'd need to apply to reinstate the original proceedings, they can't start new ones for this.

Although I do agree with andy I'm not sure why they would make a relief from sanctions application if its not been received back.

Ignoring what the court lady said for a moment, Have you received anything in the post at all?

[AndyOrch]

Reading their statement again in detail its to avoid and request relief the sanctions imposed for failing to comply with directions on time....as the sanction will be in place they are unable to rely on the documents they submitted since.

Which would be disastrous to their claim. 

Good old Link/Kearns. 

Quote

If the matter is permitted
to stand struck out then the Defendant will be the subject of a substantial windfall to
which it is submitted she is not entitled as the Claimant can and will show that they have
proven all of their claim.
 

Hence their application

[LouLouDev79]

I guess I just have to wait and keep my fingers crossed then that the judge sees them for what they are and strikes it out!

 It’s really unfair that these solicitors are allowed to miss deadlines and still get permission to proceed.

Like I said, they did exactly the same trick on the set aside hearing! 

[dx100uk]

link/kearns always pull every stunt in the book.

dx

 

[LouLouDev79]

I have just spoken to the court for an update and they confirmed that the case was struck out on 22nd May (they have apparently written to me to confirm but I have not received the letter yet).   

They said that the hearing on 7th July has been vacated.   

She said they have received the relief of sanctions application and so this waiting to be looked at by a judge, I will just have to wait to hear if that is successful.

My question now is,

am I able to change my defence now to add that the debt is now Statue-barred as I didnt include that on my original defence? 

 Do I need to be doing anything at this point?

[AndyOrch]

9 minutes ago, LouLouDev79 said:

am I able to change my defence now to add that the debt is now Statue-barred as I didnt include that on my original defence? 

Afraid not if their application is granted then the claim remains the same as at issuance.

[dx100uk]

thread title updated.

dx

 

[LouLouDev79]

Is there anything I can do to object to the application or at least have my thoughts heard?

[AndyOrch]

Not in this type of application but if its allowed and the claim resumes you will have opportunity to raise the conduct of the claimant within your statement.

[dx100uk]

as their claim is struck out, then the debt is now sb'd surely?

why not send link our sb letter.?

blow them out the water totally?

dx