Excel/BW Legal, Company Defendant. Vicarious Liability

System

Remember it's no longer a subject access request, it's now a request for information under part 31 of the civil procedure rules

Just a heads up @Lamilad.

Scope of this Part
31.1
(1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents.
(2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

Best note to quote CPR 31 and just ask for the information to "narrow the issues and establish the facts of the dispute". It shows the court you are making an attempt and if they refuse** it will reflect on them.

** Typically when you misquote the CPRs, Gladstones and others are only too happy to correct you and not to give you what you want until you re-clarify it. So make it simple rather than giving them a chance to refuse.

Lamilad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Just a heads up @Lamilad.



Best note to quote CPR 31 and just ask for the information to "narrow the issues and establish the facts of the dispute". It shows the court you are making an attempt and if they refuse** it will reflect on them.

** Typically when you misquote the CPRs, Gladstones and others are only too happy to correct you and not to give you what you want until you re-clarify it. So make it simple rather than giving them a chance to refuse.

Thanks IamEmanresu, I was aware of the small claims exemption but was hoping to get away with it as BWL usually do respond to part 31/ part 18 requests.

But I think you are correct, best not to give them an excuse to delay or refuse the information, especially as time is not on the Def's side.

Lamilad

OP - I would suggest drafting a request for information based loosely on the SAR template above but using wording from this response to an LBC posted on another thread... which makes the request based on what the claimant is obliged to provide in order to "narrow the issues" pursuant to the CPRs and pre action protocol

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73316565#Comment_73316565

Give them a deadline of 14 days to respond

Lamilad

Let's see your draft letter before you send it.

Then you need to start working on your WS, I would suggest a separate skeleton argument in this case so you can make some targeted attacks an what will be a woeful WS from the claimant solicitors

You'll have to play a little fast and loose with your WS as it will need to make up for the inadequacies in your defence.

Riz268

Thank you, is something like this ok? Do I go into land contract, signs etc??


Dear Sirs

Request for information under Part 31 Civil Procedure rules


I require the following documents


*All the information you hold under the vehicle Reg ##### such as images of the car and letters sent to my company about the car


*All the information relating to PCN no#####


*Whether you are pursuing me as a driver or keeper


*Whether you are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of Pofa 2012


*What the details of the claim are, where it is the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being calculated arose and have been calculated


*All other information you hold about (company name) including information from or to third parties


Not sure how to end? Can someone help. I have read the link @LamiLad but i don't understand the protocols etc it's going on about

nosferatu1001

why lead with part 31, when told not to do so? Post 33

Riz268

Aah yes thank you

Riz268

Is the letter ok to send?

Just request for information. Will delete cpr bit?

Riz268

Shall I add this bit to the beginning of the letter above?

Your client must know that on the 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims.


Please treat this letter as a formal request for all documents/information that the new protocol now requires to provide.


I reserve the right to draw any failure of the claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court.

Castle

Riz268 wrote: »

Shall I add this bit to the beginning of the letter above?

Your client must know that on the 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. the court.

No; the new protocol doesn't apply to debts "owed" by companies, only individuals.