Letter before claim

DoaM

Did the claimant request the adjournment? Or was the judge who ordered it?

(A bit more background detail will be interesting to read).

Kind_Of_Irritated

Hi DoaM.

The judge. The claimant's legal rep (she was on her own with no Mr MG) wanted it to at least start straight away (even if later adjourned) but the judge said he couldn't see the point. I expressed no opinion either way.

In fact the judge explained why he didn't wish to start for much of the hour he had allocated for the hearing.

He continually asked me how long my defence would take. I continually told him I really didn't know as I had never done this sort of thing before. He continued to continually ask me, anyway. Meanwhile the clock ticked.

After he had made his mind up - at about 40 minutes in, and with another hearing clearly in the offing - the claimant's representative mentioned to the judge some concern re her client's mounting costs. Judge said "as you know you cannot claim costs as a claimant in the small claims court".

Challenged by my witness as to why it had not been realised that this case was heavy with paperwork (on my part) and the courts had had my bundle and information for weeks, the judge said this was the first time he had seen it.

One of these fine days the courts may get a handle on this misuse of the "justice" platform in this way. I understand the taxpayer only receives one payment of £50 for each of these cases, no matter how many adjournments there are.

All the other cases I could see on the board for this court were from PPCs, filling the day entirely. Mine was the only one from L..k / Glad....es.

So, not a win, but not a loss yet, for either side.

We don't yet know when it will be reallocated but probably April or May... or perhaps 2018. Who knows!?

The_Deep

Does the AST have more importance than the original lease?


No, it is the other way round. I try to have my ASTs follow the lease as closely as possible, but many landlords will agree to an off the peg one size fits all letting agent's lease, which may or may not be entirely accurate.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks.

So, I have filed and served copies of the AST. No-one has sent me a copy of the lease in their bundle or before or since. I have now got a court-ready Land Registry copy of the lease. I haven't filed or served it as it DOES mention parking and its limitations.

However the landlord's lease was NOT seen by the tenant when he signed and agreed to the AST. How could the claimant argue that the tenant is tied into a contract he didn't see and didn't sign?

The_Deep wrote: »

Does the AST have more importance than the original lease?


No, it is the other way round. I try to have my ASTs follow the lease as closely as possible, but many landlords will agree to an off the peg one size fits all letting agent's lease, which may or may not be entirely accurate.

System

I have now got a court-ready Land Registry copy of the lease. I haven't filed or served it as it DOES mention parking and its limitations.

Doubt you can use it - and you wouldn't want to. If the other side has not produced it then they shouldn't be able to use it either.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thank you. That's what I thought too.

Kind_Of_Irritated

The BBC Wales X-Ray programme re a certain PPC (Millennium Events) is on at 19:30 - in about half an hour from now. :T

Rachel Treadaway-Williams visits a new housing estate in Swansea where a private parking company has dished out dozens of tickets to unhappy residents for parking outside their own homes.

Kind_Of_Irritated

It was quite a useful piece on X-Ray although there were so many elements of the PPC brigade's cash cow nonsense it didn't go into.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Earlier on another page, some of us got sort of sidetracked off the original OP's point.

Page is for dramaking here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72338468&utm_source=MSE_FS&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=28-Mar-17

I think we all realise that this sort of thing happens naturally at times as we OPs discuss and debate. In fact it is often helpful to move slightly off point as issues raised re other cases can highlight things we may come up against as our arguments develop. Anyway, in order to remove any distractions I am shifting anything I wrote on that page to here. This is one of them:

Loads of... I am aware this is someone else's case page so perhaps we should talk more on this at mine.

However, in case anyone else here is interested, here's a quick summary of the issues:
1) MG's WS came to me by EMAIL before the due date (& included his "bundle").
2) My concern is the claimant didn't produce ALL the papers (from both sides) on the day in court. I understood that was a requirement of the claimant. Am I wrong in this?
2) Is the claimant's side likely to say on the new date in court they have had no papers from me though I emailed them everything? Reason for that being that "Gladstones do not accept service of documents by email"? Hugely irritating if they do as THEY emailed me his WS & Bundle, saving themselves printing & postage costs.
4) Should I just bite the (more expenses) bullet and POST everything I have already served by email to Gladstones, just in case?
5) No, Gardner didn't turn up. I raised his absence with the judge and he said the claimant is not required to turn up as long as someone speaks on his behalf. (His legal rep did and she and the judge both flicked away my queries re her RoA.) So, do you really reckon they'll give a damn if he doesn't turn up in May? I doubt it.
6)You say this above - "Witnesses HAVE to attend for cross examination". Looks like that is interpreted very loosely indeed, since MG didn't turn up and the judge clearly didn't care. Is MG more likely to turn up for the reschedule, and are court expectations higher that he SHOULD turn up since this is an adjourned hearing?
7) Btw, who is supposed to etc... the witness who can't come? "If a witness can't come you are supposed to serve a Civil Evidence Act Notice." I suppose I could ask the judge if he has served that notice. If he says he hasn't can I, what's the word... "invite" the judge to strike out the case?

I want the case decided AGAINST him. With MY costs awarded to me.

Loadsofchildren123

2) My concern is the claimant didn't produce ALL the papers (from both sides) on the day in court. I understood that was a requirement of the claimant. Am I wrong in this?
In the order which you get after the case is transferred to your local court (setting out the timetable for the trial, witness statements etc) there is a paragraph that says the Claimant must produce a paginated bundle for the final hearing containing all the relevant documents each party relies on. This has to be filed and served. If Gladstones failed to send you this bundle you must write and complain. They are in contempt of court. Ask them to send it to you. If you don't want it emailed say that you have decided you do not wish to accept service by email and they must send you a hard copy. Tell them their failure was the sole reason the case was adjourned, which (as a LiP you had not fully appreciated until now).
It is only necessary for you to prepare your own bundle for the final hearing if they have missed something out of theirs. The whole point of the order is so that there is only 1 bundle and it contains ALL the documents.

2) Is the claimant's side likely to say on the new date in court they have had no papers from me though I emailed them everything? Reason for that being that "Gladstones do not accept service of documents by email"? Hugely irritating if they do as THEY emailed me his WS & Bundle, saving themselves printing & postage costs.
I doubt it but ask them to confirm receipt of (list documents and date they were emailed).

4) Should I just bite the (more expenses) bullet and POST everything I have already served by email to Gladstones, just in case?
Personally I would, to be on the safe side. Equally it is clear they have received everything. Particularly if you specifically ask them and they confirm or don't bother replying (plus anything you'd emailed them was in the bundle you gave them last week).

5) No, Gardner didn't turn up. I raised his absence with the judge and he said the claimant is not required to turn up as long as someone speaks on his behalf. (His legal rep did and she and the judge both flicked away my queries re her RoA.) So, do you really reckon they'll give a damn if he doesn't turn up in May? I doubt it.
The judge is right that a Claumant doesn't have to turn up if they send a lawyer. However, he didn't appreciate that THE WITNESS wasn't there. I'll look up the rule for you - you must complain about this next time.

6)You say this above - "Witnesses HAVE to attend for cross examination". Looks like that is interpreted very loosely indeed, since MG didn't turn up and the judge clearly didn't care. Is MG more likely to turn up for the reschedule, and are court expectations higher that he SHOULD turn up since this is an adjourned hearing?
No, expectations are no higher.
If a witn so doesn't attend it is up to the judge what weight he then puts on his evidence. He has the discretion to disregard it or to take it into a count, or to require his attendance and adjourn.
MG's statement probably deals just with producing the landowner contract, the original PCN, the NtK and LBC (I am taking an educated guess). It is unlikely to contain disputed facts that he needs to be cross examined on. Unless you could show that there are issues relating to his statement that you want to cross examine him about, and these issues are important, I think the judge will form the view that his absence doesn't matter.

7) Btw, who is supposed to etc... the witness who can't come? "If a witness can't come you are supposed to serve a Civil Evidence Act Notice." I suppose I could ask the judge if he has served that notice. If he says he hasn't can I, what's the word... "invite" the judge to strike out the case?
This is a formal procedural step required when a witness is unable to attend court. I'll have to check if the procedure for this sort of thing differs in small claims. Technically they could ignore MG's evidence (which would then be an automatic win for you), but as I've said above I don't think they will. It is often the case that a party is supposed to do something according to the rules but when they don't the judges aren't really interested. It's really annoying.

I'll look up those rules on Monday.