Help and guidance please

Capt_Mainwaring

I've just completed the N180s for both claims. I thought I could email them back to the Court. Is this correct? I'm going to email it to them and to BW Legal and trust this is okay.

I've looked for my local Court and the Gov website shows it to be Bradford. However, based on Lamilad's successes, I've opted for Skipton.

KeithP

Please re-read my last post on this thread. That should answer your question.

Capt_Mainwaring

Thanks Keith and apologies for not re-reading. Glad I've done the right thing anyway!

Capt_Mainwaring

Hi

I received a General Form of Judgment or Order through the post from the County Court at Skipton on Thursday 29/3. It confirms the following:

District Judge Fay Wright sitting at (Court address) considered the papers in the case and

ordered that:

1) Unless by 4pm on the 5 April 2018 the Claimant files and serves amended particulars of claim addressing the matters required by CPR 1998 PD 16.7 and the legal basis on which is claims the defendant is liable to it the claim shall stand struck out.

2) The defendant has permission if so advised to file with the court and serve on the claimant an amended defence within 14 days of service on her of the amended particulars of claim.

3) Because this Order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party making such an application must send or deliver the application the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of the service of this order.

Is it standard procedure to receive this form? Do I need to do anything? I wasn't planning to amend my defence.

Please excuse my ignorance but what exactly does applying to have the order set aside, varied or stayed mean? Do I still have to go to court?

As ever, thanks for your help and guidance.

Lamilad

Is it standard procedure to receive this form? Do I need to do anything?

Not standard procedure but not surprising for Skipton Court. DJ Wright has previously been very critical of Excel's PoC.

You don't necessarily need to submit an amended defence. Wait to see if they comply with the order and what the new PoC states.

[Deleted User]

Nice. It just means the DJ shares the view of most forumites that a one line set of particulars of claim is woefully inadequate.

Remember that if a new set of particulars are served, you should critically evaluate the defence and whether you wish to add to or amend it. The claimant may revise their arguments so greatly that this is prudent.

This is helpful. Unlike others who only find out the real arguments later with the witness statements, you get to flush out the case early (which is as it should be).

Capt_Mainwaring

Hi

BW Legal have written to me. In the alleged contravention where driver liability was admitted, they have provided me with a detailed response containing eight numbered paragraphs to justify why I owe them money. Their response includes a verbatim reproduction of the car park signage, confirming that ANPR is in place, that their client is a member of the IPC and that they have the right to follow this course of action. Nothing really unpredictable or out of the ordinary in their letter.

In the other alleged contravention, where the driver's identity has not been confirmed, Excel have decided to make me an offer! In a fairly patronising tone, Excel believe that my defence is 'unlikely to succeed' but in order to avoid either party incurring further costs, they have instructed BW to propose an offer of settlement. How kind of them! IF they think I can't win, why are they prepared to knock the best part of £75 off my 'account balance'? Surely if they are that confident, they should be pushing the Court for an immediate hearing, so they can trounce me and screw the full amount out of me, or have a CCJ issued, if I refuse to pay.

Their offer expires on 11th April. Of course, I'm not going to take them up on it.

Coupon-mad

Their response includes a verbatim reproduction of the car park signage,

A stock picture of what they say a sign might have looked like? Typical trash.

In the other alleged contravention, where the driver's identity has not been confirmed, Excel have decided to make me an offer! In a fairly patronising tone, Excel believe that my defence is 'unlikely to succeed' but in order to avoid either party incurring further costs, they have instructed BW to propose an offer of settlement. How kind of them! IF they think I can't win, why are they prepared to knock the best part of £75 off my 'account balance'?

LOL!

Umkomaas

Cue discontinuation?

[Deleted User]

BW Legal have written to me. In the alleged contravention where driver liability was admitted, they have provided me with a detailed response containing eight numbered paragraphs to justify why I owe them money. Their response includes a verbatim reproduction of the car park signage, confirming that ANPR is in place, that their client is a member of the IPC and that they have the right to follow this course of action. Nothing really unpredictable or out of the ordinary in their letter.

In the other alleged contravention, where the driver's identity has not been confirmed, Excel have decided to make me an offer!

Not sure which claim is which in relation to where you're at in the proceedings. Unless I'm missing something (stranger things have happened, given this is a forum not a complete set of documents). You've not mentioned a new set of Particulars coming in. One might ask why they are "willy waving" and not complying with the extant court order?

Unless by 4pm on the 5 April 2018 the Claimant files and serves amended particulars of claim addressing the matters required by CPR 1998 PD 16.7 and the legal basis on which is claims the defendant is liable to it the claim shall stand struck out.

I know what i'd be focussing on if I were them. There won't be an 11 April unless you get a new set of proceedings tomorrow afternoon....