Newbie at the start of his CCJ claim form defence journey (Help) - UPDATE-CLAIM STRUCK OUT!!!!

Gaz87

Still no update regards this either online or in the post. 
Deadline as well and truly past now.  

Do you think it's worth me calling the courts up or would you just leave it until they get in touch with me?

Many thanks as always. 

KeithP

Gaz87 said:

Still no update regards this either online or in the post. 
Deadline as well and truly past now.  

Do you think it's worth me calling the courts up or would you just leave it until they get in touch with me?

Many thanks as always. 

Did you not see my post on your thread on 15 September at 5:10PM where I wrote...

But these words...

...mean that the Claimant must file with the court and serve on the Defendant the revised PoC by the date specified.

If you have received nothing, then they have failed to meet the terms of that Order.
That needs pointing out to the Court.

It's nearly four weeks ago that I wrote that.

Coupon-mad

Gaz87 said:

Still no update regards this either online or in the post. 
Deadline as well and truly past now.  

Do you think it's worth me calling the courts up or would you just leave it until they get in touch with me?

Many thanks as always. 

Despite Keith's advice a month ago, are you saying you did nothing? You haven't pointed this failure by the Claimant out to the court and asked the Judge to award your costs?

Gaz87

I didn't know if I had to await for further  confirmation from the court before replying in writing. 
Anyway I have just called the court for an update and they have stated theclaim has been struck out as the claimant has not sent anything since. 

Unless they apply to reinstate it.

Asked for them to send it in writing which I should get shortly. 

What would I do regards costs then or am I best to leaving it now?

Glad it's done though to be honest. 

Coupon-mad

You'd be doing what the NEWBIES thread already says about costs.  There's even an example of what to put.

KeithP

Gaz87 said:

I didn't know if I had to await for further  confirmation from the court before replying in writing. 

Why??

Once again I repeat what I wrote on your thread four weeks ago...

KeithP said:

If you have received nothing, then they have failed to meet the terms of that Order.
That needs pointing out to the Court.

Gaz87

Coupon-mad said:

You'd be doing what the NEWBIES thread already says about costs.  There's even an example of what to put.

Thanks , I have had a look and decided to leave it as is.

KeithP said:

Gaz87 said:

I didn't know if I had to await for further  confirmation from the court before replying in writing. 

Why??

Once again I repeat what I wrote on your thread four weeks ago...

KeithP said:

If you have received nothing, then they have failed to meet the terms of that Order.
That needs pointing out to the Court.

As mentioned previously dealing with courts is not something I'm familiar with luckily and just assumed I couldn't just pick up the phone to update them.

Like I said I'm pleased it's done and dusted with now and hopefully my case can be added to the list of existing failures from DCB and uk parking control. 

Many thanks once again for everyone's help and if anything else needed from me to help the cause please let me know. 

Coupon-mad

OK so I will say well done, you won!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

UncleThomasCobley

Gaz87 said:

...they have stated the claim has been struck out as the claimant has not sent anything since. 

Unless they apply to reinstate it.

I'm pretty sure that if the claim has been "struck out", they cannot just "reinstate it".

Anyway, that is a win. @Umkomaas alert!

Umkomaas

UncleThomasCobley said:

Gaz87 said:

...they have stated the claim has been struck out as the claimant has not sent anything since. 

Unless they apply to reinstate it.

I'm pretty sure that if the claim has been "struck out", they cannot just "reinstate it".

Anyway, that is a win. @Umkomaas alert!

It's a court strikeout, not a DCB Legal discontinuation, and as I'm trying to keep the discontinuation thread 'pure', I won't include this case. But, good win, whichever way up. 🙂