Country court business centre claim

Loadsofchildren123

Say no to it
The PPCs always do this. If you object, there will be a hearing.
When you receive the DQ from the court, fill it in and send it back to say you do not agree to the proposed direction for the matter to be dealt with on the papers.

kartush45

so I need to wait for the form from the court as this is from the Gladstones Solicitors.

Loadsofchildren123

Yes. They always do that. Ignore the one they've sent you. You'll get one from the court with an order saying what date you must return it by. When you return it you say you object to their request for a paper hearing.

kartush45

Hi i just received a notice of proposed allocation to the Small Claims Track. IS a form that i need to complete.What is this and what is my next step

Umkomaas

Next step - NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post # 2. Directions Questionnaire.

Everything you need is detailed in the above. You really need to be on top of this, and be ready for any next step.

Loadsofchildren123

When you fill it in and send it back, do a covering letter asking the court to:


1. stay the claim pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, until the Claimant has complied with paragraphs 3, 6(a) and 6(c) by providing a proper explanation of the circumstances giving rise to the claim, and the core evidence upon which they will rely.
2. in the alternative, to order SEQUENTIAL service of witness statements, rather than exchange, because due to their failure to comply with the Practice Direction and their failure to comply with CPR 16.4 by properly particularising their claim, you have little to no understanding of how the claim is being brought and how it will be evidenced, and in light of that you have had to defend on the basis of a number of presumptions and it is a waste of costs and prejudicial to you to have to conduct the case in this manner.

kartush45

Hi....so this is my cover letter for N180 form...is it ok or not?

Hi guys...so this is my cover letter. What is your opinion...good or bad?

As an unrepresented defendant I require a hearing at my local Court because Gladstones have followed their usual well-trodden path of robo-claims with no due diligence, offering no evidence of any contract, no facts nor clear and concise Particulars of Claim. They are known to withhold any contract/facts until the last minute (often ambushing Defendants late with paperwork never shown earlier), aldo timely written request for facts and details of this claim was submitted by the Defendand to the Claimant.
This potentially causes any consumer extreme disadvantage if these cases are heard 'on the papers' because based on the routinely scant information provided to you so far, it has been almost impossible to put together a detailed defence thus far.
The Defendant respectfully request the court strike out this claim, for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law
Respectfully the Defendant request that, in the event that the claim is not struck out due to the lack of Particulars, the court exercises its discretion to allow a more detailed defence to be submitted without cost, should Gladstones finally produce facts, details, a contract and evidence.


Also I need to file the N180 form...how I file it?...just send the file and cover letter to the Country Court Business Centre that issued the form?

KeithP

kartush45 wrote: »

Hi guys...so this is my cover letter. What is your opinion...good or bad?

Your cover letter does not say what LOC123 suggested you say.

Why is that?

In fact, you appear not to have noticed post #27 at all.

kartush45

HI KeithP..you are right.. will adjust and repost it.

kartush45

So I adjust it . What you think eny good?
As an unrepresented defendant I require a hearing at my local Court because Gladstones have followed their usual well-trodden path of robo-claims with no due diligence, offering no evidence of any contract, no facts nor clear and concise Particulars of Claim. They are known to withhold any contract/facts until the last minute (often ambushing Defendants late with paperwork never shown earlier), aldo timely written request for facts and details of this claim was submitted by the Defendand to the Claimant.
This potentially causes any consumer extreme disadvantage if these cases are heard 'on the papers' because based on the routinely scant information provided to me so far, it has been almost impossible to put together a detailed defence thus far.
The Defendant respectfully request the court strike out this claim, for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent'.
Respectfully the Defendant request that, in the event that the claim is not struck out due to the lack of Particulars, the court exercises its discretion to allow a more detailed defence to be submitted without cost, should Gladstones finally produce facts, details, a contract and evidence and respectfully asks the Court to:
• stay the claim pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, until the Claimant has complied with paragraphs 3, 6(a) and 6(c) by providing a proper explanation of the circumstances giving rise to the claim, and the core evidence upon which they will rely.
• in the alternative, to order SEQUENTIAL service of witness statements, rather than exchange, because due to their failure to comply with the Practice Direction and their failure to comply with CPR 16.4 by properly particularising their claim, I have little to no understanding of how the claim is being brought and how it will be evidenced, and in light of that I have had to defend on the basis of a number of presumptions and it is a waste of costs and prejudicial to you to have to conduct the case in this manner.