Is A Late Defence Usual?

[crfx250]

At last...a sensible post for ya:

 

 

My two MCOL claims have been served and acknowledged. As I understand it, Barclays have 28 days from the initial deemed service date- which is up at midnight this monday - to file a defence on my first claim and tuesday for the second, much larger one.

 

I'm not holding my breathe but do they always leave it this late? I cant figure out why it would be in thier interest to cut it so fine as I'm sure they would want to defend it.

 

I'd be interested to know.

 

Thanks

[lucid]

Hi,

 

I've only dealt with Lloyds but I believe most banks tend to take a long time to do anything at the court stage. Usually Lloyds seem to enter a defence after the deadline and that is acceptable for the court. It's probably the same with most banks so if you haven't had anything through by your deadlines it may not mean that they aren't going to enter a defence.

 

Lucid

[crfx250]

Hi,

 

Usually Lloyds seem to enter a defence after the deadline and that is acceptable for the court.

Lucid

 

Thanks....so what your saying is the deadline is'nt worth the paper its

written on?

[lucid]

Well I think the courts try to be flexible with deadlines. Lloyds didn't get a defence to us within their deadline so we requested judgement by default. Then a couple of days later we had a letter from the court saying that our request had been denied as the bank had submitted a defence just after the deadline.

 

Still there's no harm in requesting a default judgement and I believe people ahve won that way.

 

Lucid

[crfx250]

Thanks Lucid

 

I 'm still amazed though that the legal system with all its complexities and finicky procedures can waive a set time frame on a whim.

[MrFancypants]

Northampton CC have a habit of allowing the banks extra time without considering the effect on the claimant They grant stays without making an order They are known to refuse default judgements on the grounds that the bank will present a defence

 

This of course is disgraceful conduct & frankly I don't think the judges are aware of what the staff are doing as to deny the claimants right to judgement is highly prejudicial to the claimant & if a lawyer failed to apply for judgement on the day they could be hauled up before the Law Society for professional negligence

 

It must be realised that they could apply for a set aside but then that should be their problem & not assisted by the court clerks

 

Also having to incur additional costs might have the affect of making them settle sooner rather than later

[Guest bong]

hi, my experience with Barclays was that they entered their defence on the 29th day, after I had requested judgement by default (which was then rejected). Even if you got judgement by default, they would apply to have it set aside, so the courts are probably mindful of the extra work involved when they allow a late defence.

[MrFancypants]

It is not for the courts to consider what 'might' happen. If the claimant had legal representation (I'm not advocating it) believe me when I say the court would not attempt to refuse the application & if they did a hearing before the senior judge would be requested when a complaint would be made

 

A late defence should only be allowed either on the order of the court &/or with agreement of the other party

[crfx250]

Thanks Bong & MrFancypants

 

Although you would'nt advocate it, if I did have a legal representitive apply for the judgment, would there be any other advantages over and above ''the court would not attempt to refuse the application & if they did a hearing before the senior judge would be requested when a complaint would be made''

 

It's just that because of the sheer size of my claim and the fact it goes back way beyond 6 years, well decades , the prospect of a quick and simple win is very appealing to me and the relativley small cost of involving a legal rep might be a smart move for someone like myself whois simply useless with legal stuff

[Guest bong]

I'll leave that one for mrfancypants to answer. My impression, gained only from reading other threads, has been that the defendant always manages to get the judge to agree to set aside. It isn't right that time limits are abused but I suppose you could always ask a solicitor for their opinion before instructing one to act for you. They may even stump up the defence tomorrow.

[crfx250]

Just spoke to someone at MCOL who shed some more light on the 28 day issue. She said that after a request for judgement has been received, it takes 48 hours to go through and during this time a defence can still be

accepted.

 

I would be interested to hear from anyone if that did'nt work for them

[MrFancypants]

That may be their way of doing things but it is still wrong. An 'out off time' defence when an application for judgement has been made should be rejected.

 

Believe me when I say if you missed the deadline (by even one day) a default judgement would be issued against you post haste

 

Yes the defendant would probably be granted a set aside but only if they applied for it thereby causing them more time & trouble not to say costs. This might encourage them to settle rather than continue the fight.

 

If a court clerk has stated they delay placing judgement requests before the court & as a result allow late defences to be submitted without prior consent from either the court proper or the claimant can someone get it in writing & let me know

 

I'm almost certain the judges are unaware of whats happening