Judge Iyer request to deal on papers

ld123

Hi there

I could do with some advice as I'm quite far in to this process now. A very brief summary;

- Claim from SIP/Gladstones referring to a time I was parked 'without displaying a ticket' when I used the pay by phone app (which had failed by all accounts without me realising)
- I've filed my defence based on conversations on this forum
- Gladstones/SIP requested to deal on papers to which I refused
- Case was put on hold for a while whilst SIP was involved in a dispute that could have affected the outcome of my case
- Now had a letter that states;

"DJ Iyer has considered the statements of the case and directions questionnaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track. The judge proposes to deal with the claim without a hearing, that is, on papers alone but can only do this if all parties agree."

Now I've read a different post which suggests to allow DJ Iyer to deal with this on paper as he is "The PPC killer in human form"! Is this the case? I wasn't sure if the advice on the previous thread was just specifically because of what the judge had written in the letter. This is the thread in question;

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74452712#Comment_74452712

Would be fab if I could get some advice tonight if at all possible as I need to send off my response tonight/first thing to allow enough time for the courts to receive

Thanks in advance!

Fruitcake

I suggest you delete that link. That thread is nothing to do with you and will only confuse things.

If you already have a thread, then only post on that. If his is your first thread on this subject then the regulars will need a lot more info.

Normally you would want an oral hearing, never a hearing on papers, but I understand the situation with this judge is different.
Wait for others to comment first.

twhitehousescat

ld123 wrote: »

Hi there

I could do with some advice as I'm quite far in to this process now. A very brief summary;

- Claim from SIP/Gladstones referring to a time I was parked 'without displaying a ticket' when I used the pay by phone app (which had failed by all accounts without me realising)
- I've filed my defence based on conversations on this forum
- Gladstones/SIP requested to deal on papers to which I refused
- Case was put on hold for a while whilst SIP was involved in a dispute that could have affected the outcome of my case
- Now had a letter that states;

"DJ Iyer has considered the statements of the case and directions questionnaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track. The judge proposes to deal with the claim without a hearing, that is, on papers alone but can only do this if all parties agree."

Now I've read a different post which suggests to allow DJ Iyer to deal with this on paper as he is "The PPC killer in human form"! Is this the case? I wasn't sure if the advice on the previous thread was just specifically because of what the judge had written in the letter. This is the thread in question;



Would be fab if I could get some advice tonight if at all possible as I need to send off my response tonight/first thing to allow enough time for the courts to receive

Thanks in advance!

they have continued to ask for paper , you want an oral hearing

twhitehousescat

Fruitcake wrote: »

I suggest you delete that link. That thread is nothing to do with you and will only confuse things.

If you already have a thread, then only post on that. If his is your first thread on this subject then the regulars will need a lot more info.

Normally you would want an oral hearing, never a hearing on papers, but I understand the situation with this judge is different.
Wait for others to comment first.

why would gradrags / sip want this , is the judge due a holiday that week?

ld123

It’s the judge that has suggested dealing on papers at this stage, not SIP. The reason I included the link to the other thread was because that’s where I’d seen that it had been recommended to allow judge Iyers to deal with the case on paper.

KeithP

ld123, can you please arrange for this thread to be merged with your original thread.

No-one is going to bother searching for your back story.

twhitehousescat

perhaps he is fed up with gladrags and just wants to rubber stamp another failure

" Case was put on hold for a while whilst SIP was involved in a dispute that could have affected the outcome of my case"

explain?

ld123

This is my original thread;

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5692617/county-court-claim-for-sip-ticket

I was just asking the question re: this particular judge so didn't realise all the info would be required, I wasn't expecting anyone to search for my back story. I don't know how to merge the 2 unfortunately.

Further info to the chain above - I then received a letter stating 'the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and are by this order struck out.'

Gladstones then submitted a second POC which did comply. Received evidence from SIP/Gladstones with pictures of the car etc.

Then received a letter (which unfortunately I can't find or remember the exact detail of), which put the case on hold whilst SIP were in a dispute, I'm still looking for the letter about this as I can't remember what the dispute was. Helpful I know - it has been over 10 months since I heard anything on this.

Then I've received this letter last week (have been away hence the short time frame to send my response) which specifies that Judge Iyers proposes to deal with the claim without a hearing/on papers.

I have until Friday 4pm to inform the court if I agree or not, hence the quick question on here (also posted on another thread yesterday that I didn't get a response to so thought this was the best way to go about it)

Quentin

Pm a board guide and ask for your threads to be merged

System

Unless you want to have a day sitting around in a soleless building or want to see the SCC in action, leave it as a papers only hearing.

Means that the other side won't be sending anyone, and in the unlikely event of you losing, you won't pay costs either.

The facts of the case will be clear enough if this was a SIP hotspot and from what you said earlier, there is nothing new in what you might say and indeed you might not even be asked to say anything.

But it is your money, time and level of trust in the system.

Computersaysno

Throw in a counterclaim [£250-£1500] and refuse the offer of 'deal with on papers'.


Have your day in court and take the scum for as much as you can....