Money Claims Online - at the judgement stage. Help?

JustAnotherSaver

Well the courts got back in touch to talk about "technical failure". What that means in real world talk i don't know. Their system broke? Someone forgot to post a letter out? The postman realised he'd left it in his back pocket?






I do wonder if the "technical failure" is due to the location. I used Google Maps to find it and it's a bit of a warehouse behind a house on a country lane.






Whether the house itself is linked to the business or not i don't actually know.




What is also concerning is that i've just googled the company name & while their website still shows up in Google it no longer actually loads anything. It just remains a blank white page so makes me wonder whether they're still trading - and could this be the reason there's been a "technical error". Have they closed the business on Friday (only to open up under a new name on Monday) to avoid all this?


While i imagine it doesn't enable them to truly 'escape' should my brother chase them as far as he can, i'm guessing it does make things more difficult.

twhitehousescat

the technical failure was by the court service , they forgot to post out the original paperwork , the defendant has queried this , courts have accepted non delivery and your letter tells you the day the new papers were posted and the date by which they have to reply .

unholyangel

waamo wrote: »

Was the letter signed for? Often companies don't sign so then they claim, and have evidence, it wasn't delivered.

Never use signed for post. First class post has a presumption of delivery. This means that have to demonstrate it wasn't delivered, you don't have to prove it was.

You should use their registered address if they are a ltd company. The details are on the companies house website. In saying that it now looks as though they are aware of the claim so should provide their details to the court.

You're getting confused. Deemed service is first class only but as steampowered already pointed out, this isn't about service of documents.

Also, the presumption of delivery from the Interpretation Act only applies where legislation authorises or requires a document to be sent by post.

steampowered

It sounds like the court didn't serve the claim on the Defendant like they were supposed to. Basically a mess up by the court.

Chances are that the Defendant doesn't even know about the claim yet.

This is extremely unfortunate. But there is nothing you can do about it until the Defendant has filed a response or they miss the deadline specified in the court's letter.

JustAnotherSaver

steampowered wrote: »

It sounds like the court didn't serve the claim on the Defendant like they were supposed to. Basically a mess up by the court.

Chances are that the Defendant doesn't even know about the claim yet.

This is extremely unfortunate. But there is nothing you can do about it until the Defendant has filed a response or they miss the deadline specified in the court's letter.

I'd be very surprised if that was to be the case.


The fact they were warned via SMS text message (& responded to the message) that it would be getting taken at least this far anyway


And unless there literally is no letterbox then the chances of 4 letters talking about taking it this far not making it to them are very slim indeed.



They'll be maintaining their original stance of "its an old car so it doesn't matter whether the consumer rights act 2015 says you're right, i'm still not refunding"

steampowered

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if that was to be the case.

The fact they were warned via SMS text message (& responded to the message) that it would be getting taken at least this far anyway

And unless there literally is no letterbox then the chances of 4 letters talking about taking it this far not making it to them are very slim indeed.

They'll be maintaining their original stance of "its an old car so it doesn't matter whether the consumer rights act 2015 says you're right, i'm still not refunding"

Those were all pre-action correspondence though. It seems the court didn't send the actual court claim to the Defendant until now.

So until now the Defendant only knew that a claim was being threatened, not that a claim had actually been issued.

And without the court paperwork giving the claim number and code needed to file a Defence on the MCOL system, the Defendant wouldn't have been able to file a Defence.