Wright Hassall - Please advise!

[Deleted User]

My best guess is that because the new protocol entitles defendants to more information than before, we may start to get some more detailed particulars of claim, because the court will object to the non-provision of information that D is clearly entitled to. This is no bad thing - one of my core objections is to the minimalist pleadings from claimants that in my view do not properly comply with CPR requirements.

In turn, the particulars will exceed the permitted characters. This means addendum particulars then need to be served manually by C (in addition to the automated claim form dispatched by Northants).

I may be wrong in that guess - it's early days. If this scenario becomes more common, the newbies thread can be easily tweaked, I suspect.

However, the point holds good. One can only respond to the complete case against them and if it's sent in 2 parts, that means waiting for the second part to arrive!

Insert_User_Name_Here

Many thanks for the advice so far. I also rang the court this morning who confirmed verbally that they did not expect any response from me at this stage.

Insert_User_Name_Here

So It's now 14 days + 5 since the claim form was issued and I have received nothing. I rang the court this morning who confirmed that nothing had been filed with them either. Assuming nothing comes in before close of play today, what should be my next move?

nosferatu1001

You ask the court to strike the claim out, as the particulars have not been served on you within the timesclae required. theyve also not been served on the court.

Maybe give them a call...

Insert_User_Name_Here

I spoke to the court this morning and asked about applying to strike the claim out. They have sent me a N244 form via e-mail to complete, but it seems to attract a £100 fee. Is this correct, as the notes are a little unclear?

I was hoping to not pay anything as I wasn't driving the car at the time of the alleged event.

[Deleted User]

The fee for all applications without a hearing is £100.

2 options: you do nothing, then make the claimant apply for relief from sanction or you strike out. If the application is successful you'll get an order compelling The Claimant to pay you the £100 back.

Loadsofchildren123

The court does have the power to make an order of its own volition, without requiring an actual application: its inherent powers to make orders of its own initiative, and to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial, as part of its duty of active case management are contained in CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1.

Alternatively, you could ask the court to treat your letter as an application without requiring you to issue a specific application and pay the fee - this power is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2)(b)

However, the court can refuse to do either and can require you to apply.

For a paper application, which does not need a hearing, you pay £100. If you win you get this back by way of a costs order. Make sure in the application you ask for costs.

You could have another go and write to the court citing the CPR as above and ask for it to make an order of its own volition without requiring you to make a specific application or to treat your letter as the application. However, since the file will show they've already asked you to apply they may refuse and tell you to apply.

The more time you waste the more likely it is the PPC will wake up and file the PoC.

So I think on balance make the application, pay the £100 and ask for a costs order. Ask for a specific amount - the time you have taken to deal with the matter at the allowed hourly rate for a Litigant in Person of £19 per hour (as permitted under Practice Direction 46 (paragraph 3.4) and CPR Rules 45.39(5)(b) and 46(4)(b)) plus the issue fee of £100. So you'll be asking for £100 plus say 2 hours at £19 per hour, a total of £138, payable within 14 days.

MoreFish

the letters of claim from WH are a sham. Don't argue your case as the letters woefully fall short of any procedure. Here's my replies:

Your Name
Your Address

Wright Hassall LLP
Olympus Avenue
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV34 6BF
Date
Dear Sirs,

Wright Hassall Reference ********

Thank you for your letter of ** ***** ****.

First, the alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be defended.

Secondly, despite the wholly inaccurate statement that the letter is 'in compliance with the applicable pre-action protocols' it is in fact woefully defective and appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the recipient.

Please therefore provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct.

I confirm that I shall then seek advice and submit a formal Response within 30 days of receipt, as required by the Practice Direction.

Please note, a refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013. (You may regard this as an empty threat).

I very much look forward to picking holes in any further attempt at a ‘letter of claim’ that will doubtless appear to be randomly picked from the standard letters going out of date in your case management system.

Yours faithfully

********

They sent another letter after that to which I replied:

Your Name
Your Address
Wright Hassall LLP
Olympus Avenue
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV34 6BF
Date
Dear Sirs,

Your ref: ******

Thank you for your letter of ** ****** **** in which you claim to have noted the contents of recent correspondence.

I note your threat to apply for striking out based on the fact I appear to have taken advice from an online source. Please supply statute or case law to which you plan to rely on.

In any event, you seem to believe I relied on an online source claiming that parking charges are ‘unfair’ and ‘illegal’. At no point in my letter did I raise these points, primarily because you are yet to send me a valid letter before action. I therefore believe that your letters, along with every letter I have received from those instructing you have been standard templates. I therefore very much look forward to the look on the District Judge’s face when you raise this.

Thank you for your offer of a seven day hold on the matter however you have still not provided a letter before action which complies with the practice direction. I refer in particular to the Practice Direction on Pre Action Conduct, Annex A, Paragraphs: 2.1(1), 2.1(2), 2.1(3), 2.1(5), 2.1(6), 2.2(1) and 2.2(2). I enclose a copy for your convenience.

Until a letter before action is received which complies with the protocol then I do not see any point in further correspondence. Please either supply a valid letter before action or issue proceedings. Should you choose to rely on a template letter before action at Court, I will seek an immediate strike out.

Yours faithfully


****************



They still ended up issuing proceedings however these replies by me form part of my defence that the Claimant was informed about the procedure breaches so can have no excuse in still issuing proceedings.

I hope they can be of some help. Bear in mind that the rules changed on 1 October so any letter of claim sent after that needs to comply with the new rules.

The_Deep

Are they relying on Elliott v Loake? If so I would encourage them to take me to court.

nosferatu1001

Annex A isnt applicable anymore

Morefish - your posts dont help. We're already at court stage.