Non-standard appeal to IAS - advice welcome

Umkomaas

first class recorded (evidence!)

Nope, never in this game. If they don't/won't sign for it (plenty of cases) then what? ...... think about it, who has the upper hand on evidence then?

Always first class with free Certificate of Posting from your Post Office counter clerk. Then as you have proof of posting, that's when the law says it's delivered within two working days after posting - not the DRP interpretation!

xilverhawk

Wow - didn't think of that, Umkomaas. :think: Does that mean that the only way that THEY could prove the letter was posted is to also provide Proof of Postage? up to this point, they've never done so even though the point has been raised a fair few times. Is the rest of the letter ok then, considering all we know about the case?

Umkomaas

Does that mean that the only way that THEY could prove the letter was posted is to also provide Proof of Postage?

That's how it works!

Is the rest of the letter ok then, considering all we know about the case?

Depends on what you're hoping it will achieve. If it's to get them to drop the case, my view is it's unlikely to achieve that. If it's to warn them that they've got their hands full in tackling you, then it does put up that marker. Advice on similar cases is to play 'letter tennis' with them, denying any debt exists.

The legal cases you quote are over my head I'm afraid - on a scan of them, I don't instantly recognise any, or what their outcomes were.

I don't think you've blown off any toes with the general gist of your letter.

xilverhawk

Those cases are reference for a PPC refusing to provide the information needed to build a defence, if I'm not mistaken....

Umkomaas

xilverhawk wrote: »

Those cases are reference for a PPC refusing to provide the information needed to build a defence, if I'm not mistaken....

Noted. Thank you.

xilverhawk

Right. I'm sending the letter this afternoon. I don't expect that it will act as the proverbial silver bullet to slay the fiendish PPC/AmbulanceChaser/Debt Recovery Beggars hydra monster, but hopefuly it will delay any court action at least until we can get our house purchase and move out of the way!!!!

Thanks to all in the thread - you guys/gals are a shining example of the good side of humanity.

Umkomaas

at least until we can get our house purchase and move out of the way!!!!

Another potentially mistaken assumption. To quote an old saying 'You can run, but you can't hide'.

Any claim they might make will go to the only address they currently hold. Unless you tell them of a new address (or set up a reliable redirect service for your mail, for some considerable time - and they have 6 years to pursue you through the court), they will correspond with your (soon to be) former address.

That is the most dangerous situation you face, because if you don't receive the court papers to deal with, it's almost automatic that a default judgment will be issued against you, with every chance if you don't find about it in time, the CCJ will affect your credit rating, giving you a real uphill task and a bill (for £255 minimum) in trying to put everything back together again.

Don't move and think this goes away - it just becomes much more dangerous!

Loadsofchildren123

The cases all concern applying sanctions on litigants who do not bother to follow the requirements of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.

We always complain to PPCs and their solicitors about them ignoring the Practice Direction, and then to the court, and it mostly gets ignored. I think if you quote the cases then the court at least is more likely to impose sanctions if it is given chapter and verse on its ability (and duty) to do so, so these days I prefer to put references to the cases in there.

This is what each of the cases says:

Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch):the court reiterated that the aim of the pre-action requirements was to enable an early exchange of information so that a potential claim could be fully investigated and, if possible, resolved without the need for costly litigation. Not only did the successful Claimant not recover its costs, it was ordered to pay the Defendant’s. This case clearly demonstrates that litigation should be a last resort.

Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872: the court made a punitive costs order against the Claimant because it had not complied with the Practice Direction. See the following paragraphs of the judgment:
Paragraph 11: “It is abundantly clear to me that….. this is not a series of allegations that had been properly or thoroughly investigated until…. “ after proceedings had been issued.
Paragraph 14: “The pre-action protocol provides that there should be a claim letter with a clear summary of the facts on which each claim is based”, and “the object of the protocol is… to get people to put their cards on the table and to honestly and rationally discuss matters. To that end meetings are provided for, and there is a requirement… which prescribes that there should be a rational and sensible response… the protocol provides the framework for a sensible discussion, or the chance for a sensible discussion so that the option is available to a party to avoid the need for litigation.”

Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855: The Defendant was awarded costs arising from the Claimant’s failure to comply with the Practice Direction - see paragraph 46 of the judgment in which the punitive costs order was justified by the “exchange of information taking place, not in the lower-cost atmosphere of pre-action protocol procedure, but in the higher-cost atmosphere of court proceedings “

xilverhawk

sorry Umkomaas - to clarify, I didn't mean 'move and escape the drama'; I meant 'move and have done with it (the move)

Apologies for any confusion! I've read enough of the threads to know that it's on me to ensure they can continue the chain of correspondence - that's never been in doubt.:p