Phase 1: CCJ Removed. Phase 2: Claim Discontinued. Phase 3: Costs.

Harvez63

I've had a response; 

"It is noted that we are in agreement to majority of the terms of my original draft order dated 09/02/2023 however there is the issue of costs. 

 In order to progress this matter, it is best that costs in in the case and be awarded to the party that is successful at the small claims trial." 

Their consent order

 

I cant really understand his illiterate email, and thats coming from a me! I guess he is trying to link the set a side costs to the PCN claim? is this even possible? Its definitely not something I'm agreeing to, I just want to be sure I'm understanding that correct?

I'll wait for some advice on here but my initial response is one of either "You're a moron, I'll see you Friday and seak full costs circa £674", or "I do not accept these terms, and unless you agree to the consent order I previously sent, we will go to court Friday" 

Le_Kirk

What does point 6# actually mean?  Point 3# should surely be re-served, meaning to be served again not reserved, which means to be kept for later or put aside (no pun intended).

Coupon-mad

Harvez63 said:

I've had a response; 

"It is noted that we are in agreement to majority of the terms of my original draft order dated 09/02/2023 however there is the issue of costs. 

 In order to progress this matter, it is best that costs in in the case and be awarded to the party that is successful at the small claims trial." 

Their consent order

 

I cant really understand his illiterate email, and thats coming from a me! I guess he is trying to link the set a side costs to the PCN claim? is this even possible? Its definitely not something I'm agreeing to, I just want to be sure I'm understanding that correct?

I'll wait for some advice on here but my initial response is one of either "You're a moron, I'll see you Friday and seak full costs circa £674", or "I do not accept these terms, and unless you agree to the consent order I previously sent, we will go to court Friday" 

I like your initial response thoughts. 

Yes they are trying to say all costs decisions should wait until the second hearing (of the small claim).

Normally the phrase is:

'Costs in the case'.

That phrase has a meaning, but not the one you want.

Flipping heck, we've seen costs held over until the PCN claim hearing and then either:

 (a). the second Judge forgets about those early costs, or thinks the CCJ conduct is all in the past and wasn't that bad, and summarises: "what more do you want? Come on, you've won, Mr Defendant and I'm not awarding any costs..."

Or

(b). The sneaky Claimant just discontinues between the hearings and puts their fingers in their ears, hoping not to get any 'noise' from the Defendant.

Harvez63

Thanks @Le_Kirk and @Coupon-mad

So here's the gamble .... I go back to them and say I do not agree to your consent order, and I reiterate those points in my previous email to yourself, to which my consent order needs to be agreed and signed by 4pm tomorrow, or we will have to put the case in front of a judge where I will seek FULL costs as outlined in my cost assessment. 

I'am seeking the costs back you made me pay to correctly have the CCJ set a side for being improperly served. The original claim doesn't distract from the fact I was enforced by yourself to do so, and the two are not linked in costs. 

The gamble is, I go to court and mess something up and I'm stuck with this CCJ for another 4 years over £275. However confident I am, you are, it's still a gamble (which I guess is what they're playing on). 

Coupon-mad

We've only seen one CCJ set aside refused and IIRC the person was appealing the error.  And they didn't have the unusual and compelling point you have: proof that the C had the right address all along.

There is no discretion.  The CCJ must be set aside under CPR 13.2.  End of story.

Boat_to_Bolivia

Harvez63 said:

Thanks @Le_Kirk and @Coupon-mad

So here's the gamble .... I go back to them and say I do not agree to your consent order, and I reiterate those points in my previous email to yourself, to which my consent order needs to be agreed and signed by 4pm tomorrow, or we will have to put the case in front of a judge where I will seek FULL costs as outlined in my cost assessment. 

I'am seeking the costs back you made me pay to correctly have the CCJ set a side for being improperly served. The original claim doesn't distract from the fact I was enforced by yourself to do so, and the two are not linked in costs. 

The gamble is, I go to court and mess something up and I'm stuck with this CCJ for another 4 years over £275. However confident I am, you are, it's still a gamble (which I guess is what they're playing on). 

I think you should have more faith in yourself and your ability to fight these low life. 

You want your costs back and will fight any future claim after your CCJ set aside.

Harvez63

OK let’s fight these cretins. 

I’d just like to reply one more time “properly” to them insisting they accept my terms or there is no deal. Any suggestions? Before I go back to calling a **** a ****, and stop all this polite proper stuff. 

They can hardly string a sentence together themselves 

Coupon-mad

I think re-send your version and say 'last chance'.

Harvez63

Sent them a response this morning just saying

Unfortunately I do not agree to your terms proposed and I reiterate those points raised in my previous email dated 13/02/2023

This is the last chance, I will not accept any other variant of the attached Consent Order

They've responded just saying they have referred this to our client for instructions and will revert in due course. 


Just one question regarding the court preparation, will I need to know the 4 case laws well? I've read them previously, and have been reading each one, each night this week, but its a little hard when I read a CPR, then have to stop reading; search what that is, then carry back on the transcript 

Coupon-mad

No you don't need to know them inside out.

Remember too, that they aren't even part of the main argument (to set aside the CCJ).

The secondary argument is - once the CCJ is set aside - should the claim be struck out too?  Then if the Judge is with you on that, you can take him/her to the 4 authorities that say an improperly served claim is dead, a nullity that the courts can't breathe life into.

And if course your costs.  Why should you have been dragged through this?