Practice Direction no. 2.1 on claimant's letter before claim

seaweed5254

Just a question : in the LBCC fightback Guidance thread, on the claimant's letter before claim, on item 2.2 no. 6 it says details of any funding arrangement (within the meaning of rule 43.291)(k) of the CPR) that has been entered into by the claimant.

when i looked at the link to the PD, this is not included anymore on the practice direction. is this not applicable anymore?

what does this mean?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Dont start a new thread on the same topic, its not needed

spacey2012

I am going to give you some more proactive hands on advice.

The Solicitor will offer an apology for any mistakes in PD practices and it will be game on between you and the solicitor.
Stop wasting your time on this and prepare your defence.

This rubbish does not work.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

spacey2012 wrote: »

I am going to give you some more proactive hands on advice.

The Solicitor will offer an apology for any mistakes in PD practices and it will be game on between you and the solicitor.
Stop wasting your time on this and prepare your defence.

This rubbish does not work.

Spacey can i ask what your knowledge is of the legal system compared to a retired solicitor who has taken the time to write out the thread on LBCC etc?

spacey2012

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Spacey can i ask what your knowledge is of the legal system compared to a retired solicitor who has taken the time to write out the thread on LBCC etc?

No you can not, simple answer, I need my career unfortunately, that is as close as I will go .

What I will say is this has caused no end of time wasting and the cases are heard in what is know as the bear pit.
Once the Judge decides it is game on , then your case is going ahead, PD directions misplacements and displacements or not.

If you have been summonsed to appear at County Court, you are GOING to county court.
The likely hood of your case not been heard on the day due to some minor discretion in procedure are minuscule to say the least.

The advice is well thought out and well constructed.
Has it worked yet.... No.
Will it work, I doubt it.
Prepare your case defence robustly and then mess about if you have time writing silly letters.

The person been taken to court is the defendant, you are the guilty one defending your position.
Use your time wisely to strengthen your defence.

If you do not like this advice, I really don't care, start your own forum.

It is only advice, like anything anyone puts, if you feel your time is better placed writing to the company taking you to court, all well and good.
Personally I feel you will be far better putting your time in to researching your defence, obtaining transcripts of similar cases heard, challenging foundation evidence, challenging contract formulation and getting it ready.

You will be sitting down anyway.
Make little mistake about this.

HO87

@spacey2012

I think you might be forgetting that parties have a duty to mitigate their losses and that cuts both ways. Having failed to engage (from the court's perspective) - for whatever reason - the OP needs to step up their approach or a court is simply going to take the view that they couldn't be bothered. It has been proven that robust approaches to defective/deficient/non-compliant LBA's can stop further action. It is well worth the effort IMO.

spacey2012

They are "directions" guidelines.
Will they stop a judge hearing the case.
The short answer is NO.

A served letter Demanding ADR be implemented to the plaintiff will be far more likely to be taken seriously by a court.

The BPA "guidelines+ timelines" out rule ADR, they are only guidelines.

Where a plaintiff refuses and offer of ADR from a defendant , the judge can abstain the proceedings and order it.

The famous parking company are using the same template letters thousands of times a month and all cases are making it to court that are pursued.
It was a good idea, it was very well written.
Did it work ?

Coupon-mad

spacey2012 wrote: »

The famous parking company are using the same template letters thousands of times a month and all cases are making it to court that are pursued.

No they are not. PE issued nearly 8000 claims as a scare tactic and cheap debt collection solution in 2013 - but I think only about 150 got to court or pre-court hearings. The rest were NOT all paid by the defendants either!

spacey2012 wrote: »

If you have been summonsed to appear at County Court, you are GOING to county court.

There is no 'summons' with a small claim anyway.

And your assertion is not the case at all, far from it. Plenty of posters we have helped, thought they 'must be' going to hearing but managed all sorts of other outcomes by being proactive, including full cancellation, cases indefinitely 'stayed' and even POPLA ordered by Judges at the eleventh hour.

And a LBCCC certainly isn't at that stage and is well worth responding to - we have seen even a simple letter with receipts for shopping, stop PE at LBCCC stage.

I haven't seen a case where people have robustly responded to a ParkingEye LBCCC and then replied to the next communication, go to court.