patrons only PCN

anicecuppa

One more question before I finish off my supplement.  Their defence refers to a 'widely available templated defence' and argues that my use of this is disingenuous and a waste of the court's and their time.  I was wondering whether there was mileage in replying to that in my supplementary, arguing that i) as a non-lawyer with insufficient funds to employ one it is natural that I would make use of any resources I could find and ii) that such a defence is available demonstrates how widespread this dishonest practise is, which is one of the reasons the government are in the process of passing legislation to crack down on this kind of thing.  Or do you think that will sound like sour grapes?!

Umkomaas

Sounds more than OK to me.  I'd tone down the word 'dishonest'. 

It's standard fare from DCB Legal, other sols use similar wording.  As one Judge remarked, 'So what?'

anicecuppa

'Questionable' I love that 'so what?'!!!

Jenni_D

You could also refer to the fact that many of their own witness statements (and likewise from other PPC claimants) are cut/paste documents with little thought applied; in many cases the WS documents have errors which relate to other claims rather than that specific claim. Copies of such WS can easily be found online. So for them to decry a defendant's documentation as templated is disingenuous. (There's a reason such claims are known as "robo-claims" since they are semi-automated and filed in the hope that defendants will just pay up out of fear of the court process).  

Umkomaas

anicecuppa said:

'Questionable' I love that 'so what?'!!!

That'll do. 😊

Jenni_D

Umkomaas said:

anicecuppa said:

'Questionable' I love that 'so what?'!!!

That'll do. 😊

'appen

Fruitcake

Jenni_D said:

Umkomaas said:

anicecuppa said:

'Questionable' I love that 'so what?'!!!

That'll do. 😊

'appen

Oh, is tha frum oop Norf then, lass?

(None meant).

anicecuppa

Once more thanks for all your timely advice. Supplementary Witness Statement uploaded.  And now for a nice cuppa

anicecuppa

Guess what?   After my supplementary witness statement, they have now supplied one, which details the title to the land. On the statement part they have a different claim number and defendant (though the 'exhibits are headed with the correct info)!  Also, I received it today, which is less than 14 days from the hearing date which presumably makes it inadmissible?

Umkomaas

anicecuppa said:

Guess what?   After my supplementary witness statement, they have now supplied one, which details the title to the land. On the statement part they have a different claim number and defendant (though the 'exhibits are headed with the correct info)!  Also, I received it today, which is less than 14 days from the hearing date which presumably makes it inadmissible?

How much detail is there of the other defendant?  I'd be urgently emailing the Judge, copy to DCB Legal, informing him not only of the lateness of their response, they have provided details of an entirely different defendant and case, possibly a data breach under GDPR, but also throwing into doubt the accuracy of other parts of their Witness Statement and evidence. 

Try to put the skids under them, they may decide to discontinue to avoid having to explain this to the Judge. 

There may be an 'Unreasonable Behaviour' element here, opening up the possibility of you claiming further costs awarded as a result. Hopefully others will chip in on that possibility.