Claim Form received - VCS - WON - For the second time!

lyndonp59

Well surprise, surprise, the VCS WS arrived today Monday 9th November. It should have been here by Monday 2nd November 4pm and each parties responses to the WS should have been in today 9th by 4pm.

Their WS is actually dated 4th November i.e. 2 days after it should have been in.

What should we do? Just reply back to their WS as normal or somehting else?

We did sent the email to the court FAO the judge, cc to VCS last Friday 6th as advised on here.

Coupon-mad

and each parties responses to the WS should have been in today 9th by 4pm.

I don't understand this bit. Does the Order from the court say that?  This never normally happens.

lyndonp59

Coupon-mad said:

and each parties responses to the WS should have been in today 9th by 4pm.

I don't understand this bit. Does the Order from the court say that?  This never normally happens.

Yes it says this:-

5) Each party must deliver to the other party and the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely on no later than 4pm on 02 November 2020

.

.

10) Each party may, by 4pm on 09 November 2020 file in court a concise and written response to the documents and statements served by the other party. At the same time a copy of the response must be served on the other party

Coupon-mad

OK so email a response tonight that starts with the observation that the Claimant failed to comply with point (5) of the Order of the Court and that their WS & evidence only arrived on (blah blah) and attach proof of the date.  And as far as you are aware, they also made no application for an extension of time and/or the court's permission to rely on a late witness statement or relief against sanctions. 

As such, you ask that the Judge strikes out the Claimant's WS & evidence and given that the Claimant's witness is not likely to attend, this will mean they have forfeited the right to give evidence and the claim must fail and you wish to claim your costs in full due to the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant.

Append your costs assessment again, plus your other comments on the WS, should the Judge decide not to strike out the Claimant's evidence.

P.S.  Don't forget to send a separate email (NOT TO THE CLAIMANT THIS TIME) with your phone number, if the Order about this hearing tells you to provide your number to the court not less than 2 days before.  Read it carefully, some ask that the Claimant's solicitor arranges the conference call...and again, it will probably tell you what to put in the email SUBJECT LINE so don't overlook the instructions.

Fruitcake

That's unusual. The important word though is, "may". The claimant didn't have to respond to the defendant's WS and vice versa. However, the defendant was not given that opportunity because the scammers failed to comply with the court order. The important word in that instance is, "must".

Please show us the scammer's WS anyway. Only redact YOUR personal data.
If I were you, I would respond to it anyway as advised by the court, adding a comment that since the scammers failed to comply with the court order you were put at a disadvantage and were prevented from responding within the court mandated timescales.

Johnersh

Can you post the order absent any personal details. 

lyndonp59

Coupon-mad said:

OK so email a response tonight that starts with the observation that the Claimant failed to comply with point (5) of the Order of the Court and that their WS & evidence only arrived on (blah blah) and attach proof of the date.  And as far as you are aware, they also made no application for an extension of time and/or the court's permission to rely on a late witness statement or relief against sanctions. 

As such, you ask that the Judge strikes out the Claimant's WS & evidence and given that the Claimant's witness is not likely to attend, this will mean they have forfeited the right to give evidence and the claim must fail and you wish to claim your costs in full due to the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant.

Append your costs assessment again, plus your other comments on the WS, should the Judge decide not to strike out the Claimant's evidence.

P.S.  Don't forget to send a separate email (NOT TO THE CLAIMANT THIS TIME) with your phone number, if the Order about this hearing tells you to provide your number to the court not less than 2 days before.  Read it carefully, some ask that the Claimant's solicitor arranges the conference call...and again, it will probably tell you what to put in the email SUBJECT LINE so don't overlook the instructions.

So just to get this clear:-

1) email a response ASAP about they failed to comply  blah blah and strike  it out etc. - is that also to be copied to VCS?

2) Send the supplementary WS/response with costs again as per the Order for the response to the other parties WS.

The Order did not specify a hearing date so we haven't got that yet.

On a post tomorrow I will attach the Order as requested by one poster and also the VCS WS (it is 60 pages long!), however my PC went puff the other day and no matter what I did would it boot,  so I am just in the process of reinstalling Windows and programs plus data onto a new disk so have to get the scanner next to do all that.

It is a fairly generic WS from what I can tell from other posters comments signed by the person who has only been there since Jan 2019.

Redx

I doubt you can or will need to post a WS that is 60 pages long, I suspect whoever asked for it didnt realise how many pages it is. I am not even sure the forum would allow it, meaning it would have to be hosted on a file sharing site

Fruitcake

'Twas I that requested it, and no I didn't realise it would be that long.

That being the case, post the first page giving the details of the paralegal or whoever wrote it, the last page with their statement of truth and signature, and most importantly, the alleged contract exactly as you received it, plus anything else you think might be useful for us to see.

lyndonp59

Johnersh said:

Can you post the order absent any personal details. 

Here is the order. There was also another page the N159 Response form which we sent back to say we didn't want it on papers.