Claim letter whilst on deployment

Johnersh

I hope that what has happened is your AoS is accepted, but as a challenge to jurisdiction, rather than as an acknowledgement in the usual sense.

A letter probably does need to be sent to the court and the other side that you have not accepted service as you are deployed overseas. Your mother can send that.

I have no idea how the ppc may respond to this, as indeed there are no guarantees in any litigation. Make sure you are comfortable with each step you take. 

Cashmeout93

Hi - posting on behalf of my brother as he’s asked me to try and sort this situation for him until he’s back from deployment end of month. 

Thank you for your advice. We emailed the solicitor, copying in the court stating that the defendant is on deployment and cited the CPR rules as you mentioned. There was no response from solicitors (I did supply id for both myself and brother). I spoke to the court twice. It became quite heated because they simply wouldn’t answer my question regarding what happens when a defendant is incapable of responding. She said he just needs to email. I asked what would happen in the situation where someone was in hospital. Essentially, no answer because they don’t know. We’ve now had the court letter back saying they do not accept the aos because it was signed by a third party. There is a limited time etc. if no response a judgement could be made against him. I’ve emailed the court to state, again that jurisdiction is contested on the grounds that as you said above and that we will seek to overturn any judgement on the basis that the court and the solicitors know this. 

I’ve contacted citizens advice, the mod helpline, three solicitors and a law clinic. Nobody comes back to me. Citizens advice and the mod basically said they don’t know. Surely there must be cases where this happens. I asked the court for their procedure when someone can’t be served and they just kept saying they can’t discuss a case with me (was asking for a general procedure, not sure what that has to do with GDPR). 

Using this forum I’ve actually successfully defended a claim before. Should I just do it on his behalf? I’ve requested sar from nexus as brother has never ever received a letter with a pcn. May relate to overstay a motorway when he had a sickness bug (he’s guessing). They initially refused sar but I said I was reporting them so they changed their mind but intimated that they would take the full 30 days. 

What would you do? I feel that leaving it and trying to over turn a judgement (that’s even if you can) is quite uncertain. 

I’m really frustrated that these awful companies keep going for this. I have no belief that they will act honestly in any of this. They deliberately altered and tampered with my witness statement i my bundle so I doubt they’ll state they knew he was on deployment and try and file a default judgement. I don’t want to let them have an easy ride. 

Coupon-mad

I reckon revisit the advice (he gave two options) at the start of this thread by @Johnersh who is a rare breed: a solicitor who understands private parking and small claims.

Could also see what @bargepole suggests, as he is legally qualified and deals with small claims cases every day.

Johnersh

Since: 

1. the family of the o/p gave been told that they cannot acknowledge (and it follows, they cannot agree any time extensions); and
2. The o/p is on manœuvres and unable to do anything;


The only option may be to sit tight for now. 

It remains to be seen whether the claimant will apply for or be able to obtain default judgment, given the correspondence sent to court. 

The claimant has been told that they need to contact the MoD to serve the defendant, there would appear to be a decent basis to seek a set aside, even were judgment obtained. 

The claimant can easily get a further copy of the claim form issued and serve it properly, before it expires.

Fruitcake

If it hasn't already been done, the defendant's MP and the Secretary for State for Defence should be contacted about this, plus Neil O'Brien, head of the department for levelling up because situations like this need to be resolved now, not wait until the new mandatory CoP is introduced.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh said:

Since: 

1. the family of the o/p gave been told that they cannot acknowledge (and it follows, they cannot agree any time extensions); and
2. The o/p is on manœuvres and unable to do anything;


The only option may be to sit tight for now. 

It remains to be seen whether the claimant will apply for or be able to obtain default judgment, given the correspondence sent to court. 

The claimant has been told that they need to contact the MoD to serve the defendant, there would appear to be a decent basis to seek a set aside, even were judgment obtained. 

The claimant can easily get a further copy of the claim form issued and serve it properly, before it expires.

I suppose the family could write the above in a robust email to the solicitor and copy in their MP.

I reckon this needs an urgent MP intervention (they could send a letter to the parking firm, BPA and the greedy roboclaim 'Legal' - I use the term loosely about this industry).

Give the MP these emails for the BPA:

Steve Clark:
steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Sara Roberts:
sara.r@britishparking.co.uk

I reckon those two (who I respect) might encourage Group Nexus to cancel this one because they know where it will be shown if not...thank goodness it's a BPA firm because they listen and have a level of common sense and integrity.

Please do make sure they also see the URL to this thread so they know where this case is going - straight to Govt if not cancelled, because it is is fair to say this one has pee'd me off.

Cashmeout93

Thank you so much, this is invaluable and just what I was after. 

Cashmeout93

Thank you for this!
I wrote to my MP who emailed Steve this afternoon. He’s spoken to the solicitors who have agreed to a discontinuance. 

He has also written to nexus to obtain further clarity on the details. 

Within my letter to the MP I explained that the solicitor’s were known to be underhand and cited a couple of ways in which I know this. This did not go down well and he mentioned that the comments were unhelpful, borderline libellous. I appreciate that perhaps this should have been omitted but it was by way of explaining my trepidation that they wouldn’t comply with the annex as stated. I’m hoping I’ve not annoyed him too much. 

One concern I have - I emailed from my brother’s account to nexus a SAR. Obviously as him but if I needed to I could demonstrate this was from an IP address in the UK. Would that matter? Are they likely to seek to restart this claim again or is that anyone’s guess? 

 

Le_Kirk

That sounds like a win!

Coupon-mad

Great - ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

No they won't re-start it and emails don't show IP addresses AFAIK - and your brother is perfectly entitled to ask a family member to send a SAR from his account.  It's no different than posting a letter on his behalf.

Thanks to Steve Clark / the BPA for what sounds like sensible intervention, which is what I hoped for.

If your MP (or was it Steve Clark?) thought what you said was unfair on the notorious roboclaim legal firm, he clearly wasn't in Parliament in Feb, July and November in 2018, when MPs debated the new statutory Code of Practice as that Bill had its readings in the HoC!

Here are the MPS' genuine quotes about the parking industry and their roboclaim legals.

I'd thank your MP and show him these links and words and tell him your knowledge was honest opinion shared by many people and MPs alike:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-23/debates/005F9F65-57E5-4AD0-B6EC-C26C75A7AAA2/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.