Civil procedure rules (cpr)

Johnersh

These were migrated to the (.Gov) website within the last 48 hours and are now..... Very much *harder* to read.  

www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-procedure-rules

For those that like to, the new presentation is also less accessible when printing. 

Every rule now has a drop down menu. Please take care.  Many rules don't make sense unless read together. So if reading CPR 13 for example, make sure you read all of the bits (13.1, 13.2, 13.3 etc) to get your head around what you need to do and which bits apply to you. 

Complaints have already been lodged. 

Le_Kirk

Oh, don't you just love it when improvements actually make things worse!

BrownTrout

they also trialing a new money claim system based on the the .gov website

BrownTrout

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/litigants-baffled-as-civil-procedure-rules-move-to-new-site/5107465.article

bargepole

BrownTrout said:

they also trialing a new money claim system based on the the .gov website

Yes, the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) pilot. It's designed for people to issue their own claims, and write a whole load of irrelevant garbage in the first person - I did this, he did that, and so on. The claims are recognisable by the format of the claim number, which is like 111MC999.

It is hated by legal professionals and Judges, and often results in an Order to re-plead the claim in a format compliant with CPR 16.4. The Govt. are trying to make justice more accessible, but all this does is lead people into a minefield of hitherto unsuspected legal traps.

henrik777

and often results in an Order to re-plead the claim in a format compliant with CPR 16.4.

Wonder if anyone else read that and thought, LIP getting a rougher ride than someone with a law degree, after read many parking and debt related particulars of claim, imagine that.

Redx

It would be better if PCN claims were not in the general claims section but had a special section of their own with agreed boxes etc that were bespoke for parking claims , even if certain cpr,s are required to be complied with

Part of the mcol problem is that it wasn't designed for private parking cases , but it could have a bespoke sub section tailored to suit

Redx

It would be better if PCN claims were not in the general claims section but had a special section of their own with agreed boxes etc that were bespoke for parking claims , even if certain cpr,s are required to be complied with

Part of the mcol problem is that it wasn't designed for private parking cases , but it could have a bespoke sub section tailored to suit

Johnersh

It would be better if the courts were not disproportionately affected by high volumes of low value claims from a relatively small group of claimants. 

Basically they stuffed it when getting rid of clampers.  And certainly it's a problem having cut the justice budget by 50%

BrownTrout

bargepole said:

BrownTrout said:

they also trialing a new money claim system based on the the .gov website

Yes, the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) pilot. It's designed for people to issue their own claims, and write a whole load of irrelevant garbage in the first person - I did this, he did that, and so on. The claims are recognisable by the format of the claim number, which is like 111MC999.

It is hated by legal professionals and Judges, and often results in an Order to re-plead the claim in a format compliant with CPR 16.4. The Govt. are trying to make justice more accessible, but all this does is lead people into a minefield of hitherto unsuspected legal traps.

The MCOL system is in need of an overhaul.  For example, makes much more sense to do allocation questionnaire at the time of the defence/claim form  In fact the part 8 procedure makes a lot more sense overhaul (Everything served upfront - no messing around)

henrik777

BrownTrout said:

bargepole said:

BrownTrout said:

they also trialing a new money claim system based on the the .gov website

Yes, the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) pilot. It's designed for people to issue their own claims, and write a whole load of irrelevant garbage in the first person - I did this, he did that, and so on. The claims are recognisable by the format of the claim number, which is like 111MC999.

It is hated by legal professionals and Judges, and often results in an Order to re-plead the claim in a format compliant with CPR 16.4. The Govt. are trying to make justice more accessible, but all this does is lead people into a minefield of hitherto unsuspected legal traps.

The MCOL system is in need of an overhaul.  For example, makes much more sense to do allocation questionnaire at the time of the defence/claim form  In fact the part 8 procedure makes a lot more sense overhaul (Everything served upfront - no messing around)

Does it matter what the rules are when the application and adherence is so hap hazard ?