Shoddy Claim Form Euro Car Parks / QDR Solicitors

LDast

Was the court notified that the "parties" did not consent?

Tiredofbeingdone

LDast said:

Was the court notified that the "parties" did not consent?

Not by me, I was expecting the court to ask me that question and I would have answered. This may have been a misunderstanding on my part, but I’ll explain:

The last I heard from the court (before this week – see above) was a long time ago on 22nd February where CNBC:

• Confirmed that my defence had been filed
• Confirmed case is suitable for Small Claims Track
• Advised that that the Directions Questionnaire had to be complete by 11th March (it was)

The only notification I have of QDR intending to amend the claim and submit an N244 comes from QDR themselves. In this email they requested consent, which was declined. I have not received any contact from any court authority advising me that QDR have applied for an amendment – I expected that this would be a formal part of the process, and the court would write advising of the amendment and requesting I acknowledge or consent to it. I would also have expected in this case they would give me another deadline to submit an updated defence – no such communication has been received. This makes me wonder if either:

1. There has been an admin error by the courts and I haven’t received documentation I should have. or
2. QDR have given the illusion that they submitted the amendment but haven’t actually done so, either because of ineptitude or to put the frighteners on me.

All this leaves me confused as to whether I should simply re-submit my original defence (because they seem to have lost it) or if they are asking for an updated one in response to QDR’s amendment request.

Johnersh

Until there is an order. The claimant's amended particulars are, essentially, a draft. 

There is no consent order, so the court should refuse to deal with it on the papers and list it for a hearing.

Coupon-mad

Seize the opportunity!

Reading Court wants you to send your defence because it's been mislaid.

So, do an email attaching it AND:

1. a copy of your reply to QDR where you told them that you do not consent to their application, and

2.  the appeal judgments for CEL v Chan and for CPMS v Akande, and

3.  A draft Order as per recent posts by @LDast

Coupon-mad

Did you do the above to make it clear that you DO NOT consent?

Tiredofbeingdone

Coupon-mad said:

Did you do the above to make it clear that you DO NOT consent?

Yes. It was made crystal clear to QDR in response to their email request that I did not consent, and a copy of that email has been given to the court.

What I am not clear about is whether QDR ever formally submited their N244 to the court (despite my non-consent), as I would have expected the court to advise me of ODR's N244 application but they have not.

Coupon-mad

I think you must now wait.

Tiredofbeingdone

Claim dismissed!

The judge made a couple of helpful observations before announcing his decision that may be useful to others in this forum :

1. There are many people queueing up to use the justice system at the moment and this case was not an effective use of the court's time. He viewed this claim as somewhat frivolous considering the original alleged underpayment was only £1.
2. It is beholden on the claimant to act promptly when an error is detected in their case administration. It took the claimant six months from being made aware of the error in their Particulars of Claim to finally submitting their N244. Judge quoted another case (I didn't catch the details), where it was determined that three months was the absolute outer limit of what could be considered "prompt.
   

I was confident of a win, although this was not the point I expected to win on (I'll save that one in case they come back around for a second bite). Nevertheless, a win is a win.

Thanks to everyone for all your support and help!

Happy Christmas.

Car1980

"

1. There are many people queueing up to use the justice system at the moment and this case was not an effective use of the court's time. He viewed this claim as somewhat frivolous considering the original alleged underpayment was only £1."

I like that. A useful nugget.

Coupon-mad

Great stuff!  Congrats on the win. It's over!

This case also cost them hundreds (in fees and rep's attendance costs) because they made an application which in itself cost more than the unpaid parking charge. Then a rep turned up.  All told, this cost around £500 in all their wasted costs and that's before considering staff time.

Did you ask for your costs too, in order to recoup your outgoings or loss of a day's leave, and to rub their noses in it.

  

ANOTHER QDR ONE BITES THE DUST!

That judgment clearly strikes out the POC so @Le_Kirk might be minded to add it to the 'judgments' link.  It is great that we have a mix of cases struck out before and at hearings, all due to inadequate POC.