Letter before Action template required

waamo

davidmcn wrote: »

There's no harm in sending it in duplicate - one signed for, one not - if you get a signature on delivery then that's a bonus, to the extent that he could have any argument about not getting it.

I don't agree. If it isn't signed for he can legitimately argue he didn't get it and can obtain a set aside.

If it's sent first class he has to demonstrate he didn't get it. That's very difficult to do. It creates a reverse burden of proof. As long as you can prove you posted it.

NutWorld

waamo wrote: »

I don't agree. ...

If it's sent first class he has to demonstrate he didn't get it. That's very difficult to do. It creates a reverse burden of proof. As long as you can prove you posted it.

I don't agree.

The burdon of proof in any claim remains with the claimant; the defendant has nothing to prove
(it's also very difficult, if not often impossible, to prove a negative. Although in the case of say a criminal prosection where a defendant raises the defence of say self defence, it remains with the prosecution to prove it was not self defence, not for the defendant to prove it was. )

The standard of proof required is that it is more probable than not.

If a claimant simply says they sent a letter and the defendant says they did not receive it, then barring any other factors the judge may consider (such as reliability of witness, etc) then it is one persons word against another, (effectively 50/50) and so the burdon of proof will most likely not be met.

Proof of postage is not proof of delivery.

Whilst a signature on delivery is not an aboslute proof of delivery to the addressee, it will usually meet the standard of proof required unless there are other compelling reasons put forward as to why it should not be.

dldbsl

Im posting LBA tomorrow - 1st class signed for - also confirmed by CAB that it must be done this way - thanks for your advice and others who have contributed........

waamo

NutWorld wrote: »

I don't agree.

The burdon of proof in any claim remains with the claimant; the defendant has nothing to prove
(it's also very difficult, if not often impossible, to prove a negative. Although in the case of say a criminal prosection where a defendant raises the defence of say self defence, it remains with the prosecution to prove it was not self defence, not for the defendant to prove it was. )

The standard of proof required is that it is more probable than not.

If a claimant simply says they sent a letter and the defendant says they did not receive it, then barring any other factors the judge may consider (such as reliability of witness, etc) then it is one persons word against another, (effectively 50/50) and so the burdon of proof will most likely not be met.

Proof of postage is not proof of delivery.

Whilst a signature on delivery is not an aboslute proof of delivery to the addressee, it will usually meet the standard of proof required unless there are other compelling reasons put forward as to why it should not be.

What does the Interpretation Act 1978 say?

Op don't send it signed for before you read the above act.

steampowered

We are only talking about "letters before action" here.

We are not talking about the actual court claim form which starts the process, and is the basis on which default judgments are granted if a defence is not entered.

If you use the "moneyclaimonline" system, the court will serve the claim form. The claim form will be sent by first class post, not recorded.

I wouldn't get too excited about exactly how you send a letter before action. If you want to get proof of postage that's fine; if you want to use recorded that's fine too.