Some current guidance

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Some current guidance

Hmmmm it's risky mate. See this as a classic example of judges ignoring guidelines and cca --> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...l=1#post427744

If you need access just say & it's authorised.


Technical Points don't really count when the judge is biased / allows easy remedy of claimant error/failure

can vouch for curly =- will be an asset

[Curlyben]

Re: Some current guidance

Sorry TC, but I'm not active with DCA's any longer.
This is a special deal for a friend.
Wouldn't mind giving Cabot a bloody nose mind

Over the years I've ploughed a massive amount of time and effort and been stabbed in the back on too many occasions.
Stories the same for quite a few others here as well, which is a crying shame..

[mystery1]

Re: Some current guidance

Mortimer Clarke solicitors

Pretty unlikely an actual person has that name then

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part22#22.1

Documents to be verified by a statement of truth

22.1
(1) The following documents must be verified by a statement of truth –
(a) a statement of case;


http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part22#22.2





Documents to be verified by a statement of truth
22.1
(1) The following documents must be verified by a statement of truth –
(a) a statement of case;

Failure to verify a statement of case
22.2
(1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth –
(a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but
(b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set out in it.
(2) The court may strike out(GL) a statement of case which is not verified by a statement of truth.
(3) Any party may apply for an order under paragraph (2).


http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...pd_part07e#9.1

Statement of truth
9.1 Part 22 requires any statement of case to be verified by a statement of truth. This applies to all online forms.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...d_part07e#10.1

Signature
10 Any provision of the CPR which requires a document to be signed by any person is satisfied by that person entering their name on an online form.






First of all I'd contact the claimant and combine the duff signature point and the duff POCs point asking them to replead properly. If they fail make an application to strike out or alternatively an unless order. Go with a hearing as i have seen someone have 2 judges rule in favour of this without a hearing only for the claimant to keep asking for a variation until they got a judge who ruled against them as there is no limit to applications to vary. (i'd have just applied for a variation again to change it back) With a hearing is more formal and costly to appeal.

M1

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Some current guidance

Sorry TC, but I'm not active with DCA's any longer.
This is a special deal for a friend.
Wouldn't mind giving Cabot a bloody nose mind

Over the years I've ploughed a massive amount of time and effort and been stabbed in the back on too many occasions.
Stories the same for quite a few others here as well, which is a crying shame..

Know what you mean Curly, seen it on occasions here and there, you & others have put in a lot of work over the years in certain places, including advising myself ages ago!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Some current guidance

Techie - yes mate I know Curly from before & know he's sound

However as he says, stabbed in the back (like several others) so driven away from helping, can't blame the bloke really can we

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Some current guidance

ps Andrews skiving so will reply tmw. But as pointed out it's signed incorrectly regardless - but that in itself isn't enough. I'm proof of that with Mortimer Clarke

[mystery1]

Re: Some current guidance

ps Andrews skiving so will reply tmw. But as pointed out it's signed incorrectly regardless - but that in itself isn't enough. I'm proof of that with Mortimer Clarke

Did you take that point ? If not the POCs stand.

M1

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Some current guidance

Did you take that point ? If not the POCs stand.

M1

Whilst I agree the POCs should stand, but sometimes they simply do not so it's not as simple as that - you have to remember judges do ignore rules - evidence is in the link I posted last night to Jackreachers thread.

[Sapphire]

Re: Some current guidance

Techie - yes mate I know Curly from before & know he's sound

However as he says, stabbed in the back (like several others) so driven away from helping, can't blame the bloke really can we

it doesnt happen on here Curly, they are a good crowd here Hun, so please reconsider x

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Some current guidance

it doesnt happen on here Curly, they are a good crowd here Hun, so please reconsider x

Hope considers = I will get the Pop Corn == they were the days we use to pass between us!

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Some current guidance

Techie - yes mate I know Curly from before & know he's sound

However as he says, stabbed in the back (like several others) so driven away from helping, can't blame the bloke really can we

agree

[Curlyben]

Re: Some current guidance

Did you take that point ? If not the POCs stand.

M1

Whilst I agree the POCs should stand, but sometimes they simply do not so it's not as simple as that - you have to remember judges do ignore rules - evidence is in the link I posted last night to Jackreachers thread.

Gents, this is a moot point as it's a NBC claim and they'd simply claim it was done online.

[mystery1]

Re: Some current guidance

Gents, this is a moot point as it's a NBC claim and they'd simply claim it was done online.

Somebody didn't read my post that goes through the rules

M1

[panther12]

Re: Some current guidance

With the case I'm dealing with (and thanks to M1) I got 2 judges agreeing that the claim form was not verified by a statement of truth as per cpr22, and I'm angry that the other side could keep passing it back to court until they finally find a "friendly" judge to disregard all the rules and set aside 2 previous judges orders and without any explanation or the right of the defendant to seek set aside. No doubt some "special" handshakes going on behind the scenes. I'd still do it again though.

[ATW]

Re: Some current guidance

its para 3.10 of PD 22 that you need M1:

"3.10 A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign in his own name and not that of his firm or employer."

An application can be made fro an Unless Order with a Strike out in default. That is likely to have a greater chance of success than a straight strike out. Ask them to replead and sign property and to disclose documents to comply with CCA (if a request was made under s77/78). In default of which they get struck out. It fulfillls the overriding objective by narrowing the issues and disposing of the claim early if it has no merit so saving court time being wasted in either instance by either a shorted more focused trial or no trial at all.