Car refund advice

atrixblue.-MFR-.

David_Aston wrote: »

That means you don't know if registered would cover him?

Of course it covers him, proof of postage covers him.

McKneff

Why not just hand deliver it?��

David_Aston

And take witnesses for handover Mc!

AndyMc.....

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

its evidence of its was delivered but rejected, theres a difference, if it wasn't delivered the tracking page would stipulate that it was due to being lost in transit etc,if its rejected the post office tells you it was rejected by occupier, plus the receipt is proof of postage. just like posting in mainstream with proof of postage as that is the minimum that is required to prove it was posted. Whether its rejected or not is moot point, the OP could prove it was posted that is the minimum that is required. This type of tittle for tattle does not fly with Small claims, "yes judge he may of sent it, but I refused it, therefore its not proof we received it" is not going to fly, its not accepted in the realms of refusal of signed for NIP's, S172's, Court Summons's, and it doesn't fly in small claims either. The judge will state You did receive the letter, its was your choice to then reject it, it is therefore evidenced it was SENT AND RECEIVED and proven WITH RECEIPT.






OP only needs to proof of SENDING it it makes no difference to whether it was through recorded normal course of mail, as the receipt shows PROOF OF POSTAGE.


And lets not forget 1.0 Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7

This states:-
"7. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
2.0 Practice Direction - Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail

"With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.
1. Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
2. To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-
(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;
(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.
3. "Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

4. Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.
5. This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.
8 March 1985


definition of deliver
1.
bring and hand over (a letter, parcel, or goods) to the proper recipient or address.
.



So there we have it, the law states that any document to serve Only need proof of service and bring and hand to the address for the purposes of that service.


Find some case law that states otherwise ill gladly apologise and say I was wrong until then I think your mistaken from the evidence I have seen.

Which is evidence it's not been served.

Normal first class would put the onus on the trader to prove he never recieved it.

casseus

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Which is evidence it's not been served.

Normal first class would put the onus on the trader to prove he never recieved it.

Pre action protocol states that the OP only need to write to the trader, there is nothing in the guidance in which way it should be sent!


Proof he refused, is proof he received it, you receive something to reject something there fore its DELIVERED that's hardly a defense and your point is non evidence with any fact.






All pre action letters can be refused anyway if the trader wishes, so long as the OP has proof of postage he sent them satisfies pre action protocol.






It would be accepted by the court so long as the op has proof he sent documentation to the traders address, these documents are not legal documents either in essence they're more of a demand for money back or legal matters ensue there fore is merely a notice (like a letter from a debt collector they intend to take me to court theres nothing legal about it their just notifying me of their intentions). Op is pursuing a pre action protocol rules nothing more and sending a letter satisfies this rule.


Once OP makes a MCOL, court letters are sent out, if he doesn't respond or states that "he didn't receive them" but the court sent them via royal mail first class post or royal mail first class recorded (or "signed for" as its commonly referred) delivery (it does happen) then it could be seen by the judge as a non compliance tactic by the trader See pre action protocol rules.




if this argument is put before the judge he has the option to completely dismiss the defence or split the claim into two hearings one to show the validity of postage issues and one for the claim itself, this could prove costly for the trader because he would have to pay costs upon this separate issue if he lost, OP only need prove balance of probabilities unlike magistrates beyond reasonable doubt test so.











Your theory which it is, has no standing, You MUST have had something delivered to your address and had received the mail in order to reject it therefore it is evidenced it was delivered that is MORE than is needed to prove service.

interpretations act 1978 that has already been brought to you and pre action protocol rules prove your theory wrong yet your are insistent and bring nothing to the table to evidence your even remotely right.

waamo

I'm not convinced that a LBC is not a legal document. There is a clear requirement in Court Procedure Rules that one should be sent.

The Supreme Court have stated both the CPR and Practice Directions need to be followed correctly. To say something that must be sent as a requirement by the courts isn't a legal document would seem to be stretching it.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

waamo wrote: »

I'm not convinced that a LBC is not a legal document. There is a clear requirement in Court Procedure Rules that one should be sent.

The Supreme Court have stated both the CPR and Practice Directions need to be followed correctly. To say something that must be sent as a requirement by the courts isn't a legal document would seem to be stretching it.

Hmm i dunno, is it legal document or is it just a notice of intentions that has to be folowed in legal proceedures? I would have though a legal document is one that served by a court or someone authorised by the courts as it has a stamp or seal that gives legal orders or legal directions.


i dont know?

Im not going to make that determination, this thread been knocked off course as it is without another discussion on this.

Car_54

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

And lets not forget 1.0 Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7

This states:-
"7. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

But the Act specifically applies only "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post".

AFAIK a Letter Before Action is not authorised or required by any Act but by Court Procedure Rules, and so the Interpretation Act does not apply to it.

waamo

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Hmm i dunno, is it legal document or is it just a notice of intentions that has to be folowed in legal proceedures? I would have though a legal document is one that served by a court or someone authorised by the courts as it has a stamp or seal that gives legal orders or legal directions.


i dont know?

Im not going to make that determination, this thread been knocked off course as it is without another discussion on this.

I don't know either. I wouldn't like to argue it wasn't though.

waamo

Car_54 wrote: »

But the Act specifically applies only "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post".

AFAIK a Letter Before Action is not authorised or required by any Act but by Court Procedure Rules, and so the Interpretation Act does not apply to it.

They are a statutory instrument.