Council taking me to court over pothole claim

Djnixlover

I will have a look in the morning. Two points that may be relevant though - 1 is that the insurnace company who have dealt with it all from the beginning did email me acknowledging the money claim. 2 is that they are requesting it is set aside on the grounds that they inspected it 4 months prior-as opposed to not receiving the claim or not having time to defend it etc. Not sure if that is relevant at all?

twhitehousescat

they should have defended the claim , not throw it in the bin and get a default , they were banking on you bottling out

the grounds above are not good enough for them to win a setaside

AdrianC

Djnixlover wrote: »

I will have a look in the morning. Two points that may be relevant though - 1 is that the insurnace company who have dealt with it all from the beginning did email me acknowledging the money claim.

Acknowledging the existence of the claim is different to acknowledging the validity of the claim.

2 is that they are requesting it is set aside on the grounds that they inspected it 4 months prior-as opposed to not receiving the claim or not having time to defend it etc. Not sure if that is relevant at all?

That could be their defence if it's set aside and re-heard - it's not a reason to set it aside.

waamo

Read the mail from the insurance company very carefully. If it says direct any correspondence to them then they may well argue they did not intend that to mean a court claim.

If it says court claims may be served at their address you are in an extremely strong position.

Did you send a Letter Before Claim? If not they could also argue you didn't follow the Civil Procedure Rules and potentially get it set aside.

DoaM

Djnixlover wrote: »

They asked me to reconsider and give them permission to have it set aside before they are "forced" to take it to court.

To lodge a set-aside it costs the other party £255, with no guarantee of success (i.e. it being granted). A set-aside-with-consent (which is what they've asked for) costs £100 (so saves them money) and is almost certain to be granted (which makes it easier for them).

If you're confident about your position then the decision is an easy one.

Manxman_in_exile

OP - can you post up (suitably redacted) the wording of the set aside claim, especially the grounds they are relying on for the set aside?


I agree that if they simply didn't turn up, then that in itself shouldn't be grounds to set aside. However, if they're an insurance company they ought to know what they're doing (big assumption I know). I can't help thinking that they must feel they have a good case.


Ending up in any court is a bit risky. The two parties involved both think they've got a cast iron case, but 50% of the time, one of them is wrong.


Don't think (but not sure) you can get costs awarded against you, unless you've been unreasonable. You've followed all the procedures etc correctly?

Johno100

AdrianC wrote: »

Acknowledging the existence of the claim is different to acknowledging the validity of the claim.

But it is evidence that their client and then they received the claim, so it's be extremely hard for them to say it wasn't properly served. Knocking on the head one potential grounds to request a set aside.

waamo

DoaM wrote: »

To lodge a set-aside it costs the other party £255, with no guarantee of success (i.e. it being granted). A set-aside-with-consent (which is what they've asked for) costs £100 (so saves them money) and is almost certain to be granted (which makes it easier for them).

If you're confident about your position then the decision is an easy one.

Excellent point. If they are asking for a set aside with consent then you can set conditions for that.

Tell them you will agree providing they meet all the costs for it AND they pay what they owe you.

It's highly likely they will agree and means you don't have to worry about arranging enforcement.

Car_54

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Ending up in any court is a bit risky. The two parties involved both think they've got a cast iron case, but 50% of the time, one of them is wrong.

One of them is wrong 100% of the time!

Manxman_in_exile

Car_54 wrote: »

One of them is wrong 100% of the time!

Bu99er! I just realised that a minute ago when I re-read it. Was hoping nobody would notice!