3 years between PCN and Court presence demanded

WhoDunnitDevil

Hi all,

I received some surprising and bad news yesterday, it appears that I have "lost" the case because I didn't perform an action I was supposed to, any advice/suggestions/explanations very welcome. Maybe I am misunderstanding the letter.....

In reverse chronological order:

23/07/18 - letter from County Court saying:

"UPON the court considering the defence document and concluding the submissions contained therein do not warrant a strike out of the claim
AND UPON the court noting the defence does not set out ant Defence to the action
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The Defence is struck out
2. Permission to Claimant to apply to enter judgement.
3. R3.3 (S) Direct"

To me this sounds like I missed a submission of some sort, meaning the court has "seen" no defence from me. I hope my understanding is incorrect!

01/06/18 - when I was informed by CCBC that the claim was transferred to my local court from Northampton.

10/05/18 - a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track which requested me to file the N180 with the court by 29/05/18, which I did and submitted within the required timeframe.

So in summary, looks like I have "lost", I think it is something I failed to do, but can't understand specifically what that was. I would love to know what it was as I am peeved at wasting so much time on this, but more importantly I would love to know what, if anything, I can do now?
Any help and assistance as always is much appreciated.

System

Which county court. Clearly the judge thinks the defence is pants.

See the rule https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03#3.3

This is a problem with templates where the particulars are not checked. The particulars have to be answered and anything else is just waffle.

WhoDunnitDevil

Thanks for the link, it was District judge Nicolle in Nottingham.

Seems hypocritical to say the defence is a cut and paste job when the whole point of this is to undermine a Roboclaim Industry; surely the definition of cut and paste!

WhoDunnitDevil

Am I correct in assuming that it's over and I have lost the case? I will have to pay the original amount in full? Even the charges and ridiculous inflation that have been added?

System

2. Permission to Claimant to apply to enter judgement.

It is up to the Claimant as to whether they apply for a judgement

Am I correct in assuming that it's over and I have lost the case? I will have to pay the original amount in full?

If they apply, you pay the amount of the claim.

What was on the particulars?

nosferatu1001

You didnt miss a submission - as noted, the Judge read your defence, and decided it contained no Defence to the Claim.

As this was done without a hearing you should be able to appeal that order?

Did you deny every element of the particulars?

[Deleted User]

The defence has no doubt included a request to strike out the particulars (as the template often does) but has failed to adequately respond to the allegations that have been set out in the particulars. Those normally include:

1. That the car was parked
2. That there was a contract
3. That D was keeper and/or driver
4. That a sum of money is owed.

The position is, of course, different if a more detailed set of particulars are prepared. In any case all allegations need to responded to in order that the court can be satisfied that there is a case to defend.

AND UPON the court noting the defence does not set out any Defence to the action

It appears that the "beef" with the robo-claim was clear, but not any argument as to why the PPC claim should fail. The court has now made an order of its own volition and judgment is apparently imminent.

Your only option is probably to:

1. Apply to set aside
2. Seek leave to amend the defence
3. Seek to prevent judgment being entered under the order pending the hearing of your application.

Draft it NOW and send it in with a cheque for £255 if you're gonna do it. No guarantees, naturally - litigation is unpredictable.

Coupon-mad

Surely that Order allows you seven days to disagree, as it was made without a hearing?

Please tell us what it says about that?

Your POFA defence alone would be enough for the case to be heard with prospects of success - it is ridiculous that a Judge thinks a registered keeper saying that the relevant Act has not been complied with to hold him/her liable in law, is not a defence.

Thorsson

One thing is unclear to me - this was judged without a hearing; was a hearing offered? I had assumed, from all the other cases I've read on here so far, that it is always offered; that claimants often ask for it to be 'paper only', but that this should be refused.

Am I wrong?

Quentin

Thorsson wrote: »

One thing is unclear to me - this was judged without a hearing; was a hearing offered? I had assumed, from all the other cases I've read on here so far, that it is always offered; that claimants often ask for it to be 'paper only', but that this should be refused.

Am I wrong?

See #27. .