Struck out case back again - I am at the end of my tether

Johnersh

As far as I can tell D has not ascertained what happened at the hearing in his absence. That reads like C made an application without notice and failed to supply D with notice of the hearing or any docs in support.

If so, it was a relief from sanction application, and clearly prejudiced D. The non notification was itself a breach of the CPR. Loads of litigants fail to show at court. The DJ may not have thought to ask if C had served the application. 

Johnersh

Well, if that's the order, that's the order. You could still argue that it should've been on notice as you'd then have objected and there being no good reason for delays and non compliance etc, but prepare the primary case too. 

roberts589

Will do, thanks Johnersh

Coupon-mad

Or is it that it simply doesn't mean it will be struck out, but still remains a the strong point of defence in general with the false add ons?  

Yes, the point still stands and is further supported by the Government who in 2022 called the add-on "extorting money from motorists" and that it was effectively double recovery, thus the Government intend to ban the unpaid and unjustified disproportionate 'fee' enhancement.  You'd do well to read the second half of the current template defence which gives you some added oral argument to disallow the add-on.

However, that point is not a defence against the PCN itself and will not see the whole claim fail.

It worries me that you only talk about your defence you put in 3 years ago...no mention of your subsequent WS and evidence bundle.   You did put in a WS bundle?

roberts589

Thanks C-M.

Yes I submitted ages ago a comprehensive bundle, including various other judgements ranging from add-on removals/residential cases/signage etc etc, lease info etc, multiple insured driver info, a comprehensive witness statement, AST, various appendixes, evidence of poor quality signage, land registry extracts, the Pofa, the CoP etc....

Coupon-mad

Good.  And you can attend your hearing?

roberts589

Yes I have at really quite severe inconvenience (and with further percussions no doubt further down the line personally,) been able to arrange to attend.

This might be completely off the wall to suggest, therefore I shall tread carefully... but the Law firm representing the PPC was dispensed with by them several years ago, and they now appear to use solely a completely separate firm. 

Since all info from the PPC came several years ago, and it was the claimants solicitors who failed to act and then suffered sanctions......after the time they were dispensed with by the PPC judging by this forum.....would it be beyond the realms of possibility that the law firm are acting alone but in the name of the PPC.... when as far at the PPC are concerned the claim is old, dead and buried? Has that ever been seen before?

Something just feels very off with the timescales and this dragging on/phoenixing, the firm in question have shown precisely zero integrity until now, and i'm normally fairly adept at smelling a rat....

Coupon-mad

If you mean you thought that VCS or Excel dropped Elms Legal entirely, that's wrong.  They continue to use them.  We just see in some cases that they only use Elms up to the point of a served claim then VCS/Excel tend to cut them off in cases where a claim is defended.  

But that doesn't mean they have ever dispensed with Elms services.  They still use them.

What you suspect (a bulk litigation parking specialist legal firm appearing to call the shots, almost as if they've assigned or purchased the alleged debts for themselves) funnily enough IS what I think looks like happens sometimes with DCBLegal.  Just saying that's what it looks like to me!

But not with Elms Legal, if that's who you mean?

More likely the solicitors have had no choice but to retain your case on their books because they apparently caused a sanctionable mess up, so the PPC might well have said this is for them to sort out!

roberts589

Again I tread carefully in the public domain before my hearing, but it is neither of the PPCs or Law firms mentioned above. 

I'll forget that angle for now in any case

roberts589

My hearing is now imminent and I have had zero reply from the claimant or the court requesting copies of correspondence since the strike out, of the reinstatement/relief application that was hidden from me.

I will ask the judge to strike the claim out due to the multiple CPR failures - how does one go about this at the hearing.... speak immediately or wait for my turn? I don't want to upset the judge from the off!