Originally posted by bobogosing
View Post
Be careful with this, as MKDP do head for court far too often.
I can only state what I would personally do in any given situation, and that may or may not be in line with the official policy of this site. In my opinion. it is probably better to refer them back to the letter you sent on 19th October, rather than just sending the same letter again. Doing that could be construed as ignoring the letter you have just received, and a claimant's solicitor could refer to it as evidence that you were just printing off templates and sending them to be obstructive rather than dealing with actual correspondence.
I would send something like this -
"Dear Sir,
I am in receipt of your letter dated xx November 2014, and note with regret that you have entirely failed to deal with the matters raised in my own letter of 19th October 2014. Please refer to that letter and address the matters raised therein in an appropriate manner.
Your letter mentions the possibility of litigation, but makes no mention of what you intend to do to comply with the Pre-Action Protocols, which is required in an attempt to avoid unnecessary and expensive legal cases. It is also misleading, in that it mentions possibilities for enforcing a judgment which are dependent upon a defendant defaulting upon a judgment, and not merely receiving one.
Your letter also mentions the possibility of resolving this matter without the need for litigation, yet it is your own obstructiveness which is preventing this from occurring. You have merely forwarded to me a machine produced template, which does nothing to address any of the issues raised in my own previous correspondence.
As your letter merely mentions the instructing of a “pre-legal” department, I am not treating it as a formal Letter Before Action. Take note that if you issue a claim on the back of this letter without complying with the Pre-Action Protocols, your conduct will be brought to the court's attention, in addition to the case being vigorously defended.
Yours Faithfully,"
SH






Leave a comment: