Bailiff Knocked on the door yesterday

Galloglass

A "with consent" set aside. And a reset back to the claim being resubmitted. [Unmentioned] Costs to be decided at the next hearing.

All looks straightforward. You get your cash back and it starts again

Pay attention to iv.

Fruitcake

The comment about the claimant not being present is quite normal. they are afraid they will be asked direct questions that will weaken their case and strengthen yours.
It is possible that DCB Ltd might not attend either, but might instead send a local hired gun who will be unable to answer specific questions.

There is nothing to stop you from sending your own draft court oder. Base it on theirs but change things as appropriate.

For example where they say that they complied with the CPR by sending the claim to the correct address, you would say something like despite them knowing the correct address X months before the claim/court date, then negligently sent it to a known incorrect address without carrying out due diligence to determine the defendant's correct address for service.

You must include your costs, especially the amount incorrectly obtained by high court enforcement and ask that they be refunded by the claimant.

JacksSon

Galloglass said:

A "with consent" set aside. And a reset back to the claim being resubmitted. [Unmentioned] Costs to be decided at the next hearing.

All looks straightforward. You get your cash back and it starts again

Pay attention to iv.

Thank you. You are absolutely right. Money will come back. I was just surprised about the way their proposed order is made. Starts with "the claim was served correctly". If so, why in the world dcb accepted to set aside and refund before the hearing?  nonsense.

Galloglass

There are a few things that are worth pointing out. The first is that courts are procedural and it is defendants failing to follow process that gets the client(s) most of their money. You are in their playground.

Secondly the resubmission of the claim is another attempt at #1 - to get you caught in the process - so they will serve it, then wait to see how you respond and if there is anything in the response for them to use. 

Thirdly they are likely to walk away from the whole process at the last moment to save them "costs" if they think there is nothing for them to use. So you'll be out of pocket unless @Fruitcake 's approach works.

Lastly, this stuff is normal and they are less aggressive than in some other sectors (possibly because of the good work here). The pits are the debt buyers who flood courts with nonsense claims with no evidence using the processes, like DCBL, to get paid. 

Le_Kirk

Item v on their draft order does not make sense; there must be some words missing!

JacksSon

Le_Kirk said:

Item v on their draft order does not make sense; there must be some words missing!

I have noticed the same. 

KeithP

Item vi on that draft order is also sloppily worded...

"for the purposes of a refund to the Claimant's solicitors"    ???

Le_Kirk

One can assume (if that doesn't make an !!!!!! of U & me) that it is the intention of the draft order to have the PPC/solicitor pay back the monies taken by the bailiffs.

KeithP

Le_Kirk said:

One can assume (if that doesn't make an !!!!!! of U & me) that it is the intention of the draft order to have the PPC/solicitor pay back the monies taken by the bailiffs.

A reasonable assumption, but...
1) that's not what the Order says, and 
2) does the court run on assumptions?    

But we need to also remember that Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states...

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Coupon-mad

Galloglass said:

A "with consent" set aside. And a reset back to the claim being resubmitted. [Unmentioned] Costs to be decided at the next hearing.

All looks straightforward. You get your cash back and it starts again

Pay attention to iv.

Nonono...  This is not a 'with consent' case.  They are trying to force the issue and avoid his costs.

This Draft Order is NOT what the Defendant wants because it ignores his £275 court fee.

Defendant needs to respond to that and copy in the court, stating that he will attend the hearing with proof the Claimants held his correct address all along, and that he WILL NOT sign that Draft Order which the Claimant is trying to foist upon him at the eleventh hour to avoid being liable for his £275 fee and ordinary costs for attending the hearing plus the prospect of further full costs (including xx hours spent at £19 per hour) given the Claimant's clearly  unreasonable conduct of filing a claim using a different address to that furnished to the Claimant (by this Defendant) in writing, just weeks before the claim.

This seems to more than meet the Dammerman case high bar for wholly unreasonable conduct, especially given that:

(a) C had the right address all along;
(b) D did everything right;
(c) C found that address again easily, in order to send a bailiff round;
(d) D had already applied to set aside the Writ which the bailiff knew but ignored;
(e) the bailiff was not an independent court bailiff but an in-house HCEO employed by DCB Group, the same group of companies who ALSO filed the claim to the wrong address (DCB Legal);
(f) This smacks of a negligent or deliberate 'conveyor belt to CCJ' approach, whereby (on the balance of probabilities and to a reasonable person) DCB Group appear to have negligently or actively sought to multiply a few PCNs to escalate the sum - behind the victim Defendant's back - to nearly two grand, mostly for the unjust enrichment of DCB Group themselves.