6 PCN's and a historic CCJ

Umkomaas

The claimant has therefore breached the CoP

If this is your very first reference to the Code of Practice, I wouldn't use the initials on their own. Don't assume a Judge will understand its meaning, or won't be ultra pernickety.  If it's the first reference, do it as 'Code of Practice (CoP)', then any further reference, you can use CoP. 

63realfan

Umkomaas said:

The claimant has therefore breached the CoP

If this is your very first reference to the Code of Practice, I wouldn't use the initials on their own. Don't assume a Judge will understand its meaning, or won't be ultra pernickety.  If it's the first reference, do it as 'Code of Practice (CoP)', then any further reference, you can use CoP. 

Agreed. Thank you

63realfan

@Coupon-mad

Hi,

Because they've filed 2 separate claims, he's had to pay £550 for the set aside fee. I did suspect he would have to do this but should I redo the witness statement and draft order, ordering a refund of the application fee (£275) x2 for each case or should I leave it how it is where it doesn't state ''x2'' ?

Thank you

63realfan

To add, the CCJ was given 2 days before in April so I do need to resend edited WS and DO, does it make sense to add the above?

Coupon-mad

I assume it's at the CNBC at the moment, awaiting allocation? He could wait till the case is sent to the local court then send a short Supplementary WS asking for just one hearing for both claims xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx and stating that an hour should be sufficient, and attach a Costs Assessment sheet listing the two £275 fees and attaching receipts for those fees, plus his costs for attending one hearing.

Always copy in the C's solicitors.

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

I assume it's at the CNBC at the moment, awaiting allocation? He could wait till the case is sent to the local court then send a short Supplementary WS asking for just one hearing for both claims xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx and stating that an hour should be sufficient, and attach a Costs Assessment sheet listing the two £275 fees and attaching receipts for those fees, plus his costs for attending one hearing.

Always copy in the C's solicitors.

Yeah he submitted his N244 on Friday. He did not receive a call Friday to take payment. I asked him to call them Monday and he couldn't get through (on phone waiting 1.5 hours). He then called today, waited 1.25 hours and asked to pay where they said he has to pay £550 and that it's the defendants responsibility to call in and pay, not the other way round. They sent him a receipt of the transaction. 

I'm with you. Thank you for that. We'll leave it how it is then and wait for the allocation. I'll redo the WS and DO with the correct date the CCJ was given and resend that. Next step after that is a message to the bayliff solicitors. Am I right in saying that should the bayliff company pursue action we can take this up if the CCJ is put aside 

63realfan

Update all - he's received a court date for ONE case but not paperwork for the other so i'm hoping they'll merge each claim together and deal with both on the same day. Is there a way I can enter court with him to support him on the day? Also it says that the Claimant has to pay a court fee a month before the court date, if they don't then the case will be closed down. Does this mean essentially Gladstone's and Claimant lose and have to pay all costs back + CCJ removed?

Coupon-mad

Show us that Order. It sounds incorrect.

Unless this is the second hearing after the CCJ has already been set aside?

For a CCJ set aside case (first hearing), the Defendant's £275 x 2 has paid for two hearings and there is no fee for the C to pay.

I think he should EARLY NEXT WEEK (before the courts close for Xmas) email the local court and point out there are two applications that should be heard together AND the attached receipt shows £550 in total has been paid by the Defendant, so the Hearing Order is in error on two counts:

1 - it should refer to the two claim numbers (xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx) and should allow at least 1 hour

2 - it should not state that either party is required to pay a hearing fee.

Copy in the solicitors.  He has to.

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

Show us that Order. It sounds incorrect.

Unless this is the second hearing after the CCJ has already been set aside?

For a CCJ set aside case (first hearing), the Defendant's £275 x 2 has paid for two hearings and there is no fee for the C to pay.

I think he should EARLY NEXT WEEK (before the courts close for Xmas) email the local court and point out there are two applications that should be heard together AND the attached receipt shows £550 in total has been paid by the Defendant, so the Hearing Order is in error on two counts:

1 - it should refer to the two claim numbers (xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx) and should allow at least 1 hour

2 - it should not state that either party is required to pay a hearing fee.

Copy in the solicitors.  He has to.

Hi CM, 

He was away for Christmas and couldn't get hold of him to arrange this so will have to be within next 3 days when court staff decide to get back to work after NY. This is for the CCJ set aside hearing. He has still only received one court date for one of the reference numbers, not two. I'll get him to sort out what you've said. 

On the top of this, he's received a letter after getting back from Germany which is from Gladstones that states: 


''Rectification of data (Residential address)

Further to the above matter and your set aside application, we can confirm that the data in this matter has been reviewed and confirm we have carried out the rectifications to the following information :

Data item -

The address we hold on our system is:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(HIS CURRENT ADDRESS NOT THE OLD ONE WHERE WE BELIEVE THE LETTERS WERE SENT)

Rectification information - 

Updated on our systems

We trust this is satisfactory however please not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries. 

We can further confirm we will now take the necessary steps to inform any Data Controllers/Data Processors of the above information, including our client. This is to ensure all parties hold accurate and complete personal data for you. 

Our compliance department blah blah blah blah''

Is this Gladstones basically admitting that they did not have the right address on the system? My friend was worried that they were saying that the address they have on their system is his current one which would make it look like they did in fact have the right address all along. I said no, from what I see, it looks like they're accepting that they had the wrong address and are updating their systems. 

Wanted to get your take on it and if it's anything he can use in his defence in court. 

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

No it's them covering their backs.  In fact that's almost reasonable as a response.