We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Claim Form from Civil Enforcement Limited
Comments
-
My choice would be: 4, 2&3= then 1.
Attending a hearing gives you the opportunity to ask questions and challenge anything the Claimant's advocate might say.
That opportunity is lost if you do not attend - even worse if the Claimant attends and spouts their version of the truth.1 -
Option 2 would allow that - It's still a hearing in that both parties come together in front of the Judge (albeit telephone conf only).KeithP said:My choice would be: 4, 2&3= then 1.
Attending a hearing gives you the opportunity to ask questions and challenge anything the Claimant's advocate might say.
That opportunity is lost if you do not attend - even worse if the Claimant attends and spouts their version of the truth.
0 -
Yes but the real point is that a hearing 'on the papers' immediately gives you a disadvantage against a firm of solicitors whose day job is writing 'papers'.Driver2021 said:
Option 2 would allow that - It's still a hearing in that both parties come together in front of the Judge (albeit telephone conf only).KeithP said:My choice would be: 4, 2&3= then 1.
Attending a hearing gives you the opportunity to ask questions and challenge anything the Claimant's advocate might say.
That opportunity is lost if you do not attend - even worse if the Claimant attends and spouts their version of the truth.1 -
I'm not keen on that basis - My preference is for phone, video, papers then hearing but really wanted input to see if I am missing anything. Would telephone, video, hearing, papers be more appropriate?0
-
Yes, I think so.Driver2021 said:Would telephone, video, hearing, papers be more appropriate?
Read again item 12 on that list you were following when you filed a Defence.
Here it is again...
1 -
It's very much a personal choice except NEVER No 1. If you want to show the judge something, can this be done over a telephone? Many hearings are by video these days.1
-
'On the papers' should just not feature in any list you might consider. We have seen almost every case so 'heard' lost by the defendant.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards