POFA '12 not valid?

beamerguy

Lockable said:

Thinking about this further, the existence of this letter implies that whatever they have filed so far in terms of their claim, the judge doesn't believe it contains anything that would stand up in court. 

Yes, and as coupon said on the other thread, this approach by the judge is new

Here is the thread for Oxford where BWLegal/Britannia went into a serious car crash.  Not sure though who the judge was ... but it was Oxford.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6001859/pcn-britannia-parking-bw-legal/p9

3 January 2020 at 4:46PM  >>>> The court report

I assume that CST will dig themselves into an even deeper hole as they have done all through the CST thread

Enjoy this one

Lockable

beamerguy said:

.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6001859/pcn-britannia-parking-bw-legal/p9
Enjoy this one

That's a heartwarming read, ta. 

Fruitcake

Lockable said:

OK, so I posted this to the CST thread but here's the original thread for this case & this showstopping letter arrived yesterday. 
The court is demanding that the PPC remake their case & highlight how it satisfies certain criteria to be heard relating to signage & POFA '12 compliance, something that can't realistically be done.
This should result in it being struck out if they fail but if they carry on it allows me to remake a defence !!
This seems to me to be a way of weeding out vexatious cases that clog up the court system. Judge Devlin at Oxford is behind this & has some previous in this area, ie: sending out a letter.
I found this from a little over a year ago:
 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76791848#Comment_76791848

The judge has shown little patience in the past for badly made claims & spurious charges being applied. They seem to understand well the minutiae that PPC's can't be arsed with.
Fingers crossed for a strike out but if not the game is back on & this letter seems to outline a new defence for me. :-)

That's a cracking court order from a very savvy judge. 

If/when it is struck out, or you win, providing us with the case number, the court, and judge's name will be gold dust for the forum regulars.

Well done on your fightback.

beamerguy

Fruitcake said:

Lockable said:

OK, so I posted this to the CST thread but here's the original thread for this case & this showstopping letter arrived yesterday. 
The court is demanding that the PPC remake their case & highlight how it satisfies certain criteria to be heard relating to signage & POFA '12 compliance, something that can't realistically be done.
This should result in it being struck out if they fail but if they carry on it allows me to remake a defence !!
This seems to me to be a way of weeding out vexatious cases that clog up the court system. Judge Devlin at Oxford is behind this & has some previous in this area, ie: sending out a letter.
I found this from a little over a year ago:
 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76791848#Comment_76791848

The judge has shown little patience in the past for badly made claims & spurious charges being applied. They seem to understand well the minutiae that PPC's can't be arsed with.
Fingers crossed for a strike out but if not the game is back on & this letter seems to outline a new defence for me. :-)

That's a cracking court order from a very savvy judge. 

If/when it is struck out, or you win, providing us with the case number, the court, and judge's name will be gold dust for the forum regulars.

Well done on your fightback.

This is a game changer.
This court order is what we have been saying for a long time. Now we have a judge asking the same questions.   Such an order should be included in every statement

I would also say that this judge is fully aware that the code of practice that these legals spout is not applicable
I would also say that CST has severely damaged this industry

D_P_Dance

Swot up on costs for unreasonable behaviour CPR 27.14(2)(g)  If they default, read this

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

Lockable

Received this by email this morning. I missed their deadline to respond. Today is the day the court order lays down for them to make a proper case or be struck out. Not sure what to make of this & hadn't expected to actually hear back from them. -- 

Dear Madam

Re: Conkai Security Ltd

Claim Number: xxxxxxx

We refer to the above matter.

Please be advised that our client has reviewed your comments and defence.
They have instructed us to put forward the following full and final settlement offer:-

-  Both parties agree to a “drop-hands settlement” whereby our client’s claim is discontinued;

-  Each party bears their own costs;

- Our client will bear the cost of filing the Consent Order at Court which details the above settlement terms

We would be grateful for your response at your earliest convenience and before 12 noon on today (Monday 8thFebruary 2021). In the event that you do not respond within this timescale, we will revert to our client for further instructions in proceeding to the final hearing.

Yours faithfully

 CST LAW 

nosferatu1001

I would suggest you respond back and point out that giving you X hours notice is completely unacceptable. 
Are you ok with a drop hands offer?

Lockable

I'm not sure what a ' drop hands offer' really means. 
Looking for advice really. 

Fruitcake

As above. Do you just want this to go away, or do you want to have your day in court?
If you are happy for the latter, I suggest you fire off a summary costs assessment to the court asap for the time you have spent on research, stationary, phone calls etcetera, any data breaches, and the unreasonable delay in offering this.

If the drop hands offer does not say Without Prejudice, then you can show it to the judge/court, pointing out how unreasonable it was to do that so late on after you had spent time and money on it all, instead of when they received your reply to their LBC/LoC.

Umkomaas

Lockable said:

Received this by email this morning. I missed their deadline to respond. Today is the day the court order lays down for them to make a proper case or be struck out. Not sure what to make of this & hadn't expected to actually hear back from them. -- 

Dear Madam

Re: Conkai Security Ltd

Claim Number: xxxxxxx

We refer to the above matter.

Please be advised that our client has reviewed your comments and defence.
They have instructed us to put forward the following full and final settlement offer:-

-  Both parties agree to a “drop-hands settlement” whereby our client’s claim is discontinued;

-  Each party bears their own costs;

- Our client will bear the cost of filing the Consent Order at Court which details the above settlement terms

We would be grateful for your response at your earliest convenience and before 12 noon on today (Monday 8thFebruary 2021). In the event that you do not respond within this timescale, we will revert to our client for further instructions in proceeding to the final hearing.

Yours faithfully

 CST LAW 

Well, I did tell you that was likely!

Umkomaas said:

I bet there's some Conkai, boss-eyed, spittle-dripping goon, trying to work all that lot out!  I suspect they'll cave, but I really would like to see how they deal with that loaded gun of questions!  Wouldn't it be great if this series of questions was handed to every PPC claimant to answer, it would perhaps apply a bit of brake to the roboclaim nature of current activity?

Please keep us updated. 

I don't know if you're up for it, but you could turn the screw and make them squirm by either not accepting their drop hands offer, or saying that you will accept a settlement (on a Without Prejudice, Save as to Costs basis) of X hours x £19ph litigant in person rate for the time they have cost you in causing you to have to deal what is becoming clear is an unmeritorious claim. Tell them that you would be very interested in seeing their full response to Judge Devlin's order. 

Depends how spikey you are.