I finally received the County Court claim after 5.9 years

Gr1pr

These QDR demands have been debated several times in recent months on here, especially by coupon mad and ChirpyChicken , have a look for them

I believe that once court proceedings have been started and money paid to the CNBC, the claim itself can proceed beyond the 6 year deadline

Coupon-mad

Yes that's correct and that's why they want to amend the POC because they can't take the cheap option of reissuing the Claim afresh!

See whether @Johnersh thinks it's a realistic costs risk to continue to refuse to consent and how to word it reasonably. I mean, they have pleaded the case against you as driver and you admitted that, so what's their problem? It is odd. We smell a rat.

We suspect (but don't know) that QDR might have been ordered by an appeal judge to amend all their POC, so I wonder if there is a way to ask for full disclosure of their reasons and a copy of the lead case (if there was one) that seems to have led to this scattergun set of panicked 'let us change the POC' pushiness.

Johnersh

If D has admitted to being the driver, I don't see why C needs to amend.

Was D a hirer in any event?

Had there been any failure to serve in accordance with the rules for hirers in PoFA? although if I recall, the amendment also seeks to delete any pofa reference.

The usual rule remains that the party amending remains responsible for 'the costs of and occasioned by the amendment.' They refer to CPR 44 and can make any argument they wish, but CPR PD17 makes clear that the usual order when amending a statement of case is that you're going to wear the costs. If the claimant believes they need to amend, they should amend.

Once proceedings are issued, an amendment is not the gift of the o/p and requires court permission - even if consented to.

If proceedings were issued within limitation and the substance of the claim is the same, then everything remains in play and it is unlikely the timing of the amendment now will be an issue.

It follows, that even if D were to agree, he should seek an order that C is responsible for the time considering and preparing a new defence - irrespective of the eventual outcome of the claim.

Car1980

They sound rather desperate for what is in the grand scheme of things a very very small court claim.

I was checking it wasn't marked without prejudice, which would have been a better idea from their position, because showing it to the judge would disadvantage them, not you. It a) looks very embarrassing and smacks of incompetence, and b) highlights some sort of fatal flaw in their case. It's up to them to make their claim at the end of the day.

dkl_uk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81999452#Comment_81999452

I suspect this is one claim where, since I admitted to being the driver, and knowing how a similar case of "the reg wasn't entered right" where the judge sided with the parking firm, they are desperate to pursue to the bitter end.

ChirpyChicken

Had a couple of the same emails yesterday asking again for permission to amend the POC when refused to do so yet they havent made the application.....

Coupon-mad

I'd love to know which judge has ordered them to do this wholesale on every case. Literally cannot see any other reason.

dkl_uk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81999718#Comment_81999718

So you're at the same stage as me then? I think I'll follow suit. When they initially started the proceedings they did so under POFA and already knew the car was a lease because they literally wrote to the lease company in March 2020. If they want to change the facts after learning about them after the initial POC then they can go ahead and get a new POC.

dkl_uk

Perhaps too many failed attempts with incorrect POCs which they have now learned from and are trying to tidy up with a new wave of cash grabs?

dkl_uk

Saddened I couldn't sign this email off with "Sincerely, f*ck you".

Let's see how this goes.