Business - to - Business Letter Before Action

Thrugelmir

oz0707 said:

@Thrugelmir with the amount were talking I'm sure it's more of a case of won't pay as opposed to can't pay. We shall see how strong the courts powers are...

Limited. Enforcement is often a protracted affair. 

bermudianmark

Apply for the CCJ to be enforced, at least there is a chance that the baliffs will recover something, then wait before your next action / step.

oz0707

@bermudianmark don't you think a Third party debt order to the companies bank would be much more effective than bailiffs?!
The company is likely to have minimal assets other than cash. Regardless if they are in overdraft then at least their account gets frozen until the debt is settled and they wouldn't be able to use banking.

Would a judge be okay with me seeking such an order before first giving the defendant a chance to pay the CCJ?

bermudianmark

Often the bailiffs turning up triggers payment so I would do that first.

oz0707

Got the Judgement. As said before I don't think defendant will be aware for another 2-3 weeks dues to virtual mailbox.

Next step - If I proceed with enforcement action, be it bailiffs or third party debt order what would happen if defendant was to pay in the meantime? Would I lose the fee for starting the enforcement action?

Just trying to weigh up whether it is better to give it some time before going any further

oz0707

Sent third party debt order off Friday, managed to clarify the fee situation.

If debt paid before proceedings started then refund is issued. If paid after proceedings issued then the debt order will go ahead for the balance which will be the £110 fee in this case.

You have to apply to defendants local court which is London in this case then from what I gather its a hearing between claimant and judge. If judge agrees the order is issued. Luckily with corona the hearing would be virtual as I wouldn't fancy travelling to London for this.

oz0707

Defendant has submitted application to set judgement aside. There is no mention of stopping enforcement in their application and my cheque has cleared with regards to that application. The date on the form they submitted was 17/2, 14ish days after judgement. However after speaking to the court yesterday it seems it was only recieved 8/3. My enforcement application was dated 19/2 and received and marked as paid by 25/2. I wonder if defendant has backdated their application to make it look more favourable. 

I'm unsure if I should be objecting to the application to set aside. On one hand I wouldn't be concerned about the decision in a proper case. On the other hand I have already paid for enforcement action to be commenced, the defendant wasn't interested in acknowledging my letter before claim or acknowledging the courts time limit to respond to claim. 
I'm just concerned that from what I've read I'm liable for costs if defendant is successful in having set aside, or does this Just mean my own costs in terms of time lost and legal representation if I used?
Fun and games...

oz0707

Okay update. Both the judgement to set aside and my third party debt application got transferred to my local court. Hearing date in August.
We received instruction from the court. Defendant had until today to serve their proposed defence to me and the court. Without tempting fate this now looks unlikely to happen. I think they are relying on 'the evidence set out in the box below' in their application to set aside.

Does anyone know what consequences (if any) there will be from failing to serve proposed defence. Will the application to set aside proceed on the (brief) details contained within their application? Will it get thrown out? Will it now be my turn to submit evidence/witness statement/oppose the application to set aside? I have a witness statement typed up and just need to format it correctly however up to now I have not been given the choice by the court to oppose of support this application.

I am assuming the court is dealing with this before they process my third party debt application as I have heard no more about that. It does seem slightly unfair because it doesn't appear that the defendant has requested any recovery action be 'stayed' while their application proceeds.

as always TIA.