• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

// WON \\ Taking on Iceland

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • // WON \\ Taking on Iceland

    Hi all,

    Here's the skinny:

    In January at around 9pm an Iceland delivery truck drove onto my fathers property, up his 100 meter driveway and up to his front door. It was at the wrong address. When leaving the idiot driver reversed onto a muddy field and became stuck.

    Iceland had to call for two pick-up trucks to come get it. The first was 12 tonne and not up to the task. The second was 17 tonne and did the job. It ended at about 2am the next morning.

    Six hours later my father and his fiancee discovered that the weight of the two trucks had destroyed the driveway where the trucks had driven.

    He contacted Iceland, was put in touch with their solicitors, who initially called him and asked for photos of the damage and quotes for the repairs, and he got these to them quickly. The quotes for a new drive were 20K. Repairs are 8K. He got two quotes.

    For four months he has emailed them with about two responses to eight requests for this money so he can get the drive repaired. The state of the driveway has been leading to his vehicles dragging on the drive, and he also wanted to sell the property in July. He threatened them with legal action "next week" for a month and was still ignored. He was then told by phone that the solicitor was waiting for Iceland to get a van driver's report - whilst Tesco told him that no request was sent. I then became involved, calling the point of contact solicitor who was merely a trainee solicitor just out of Uni. He knew very little of what was going on and provided no positive signs of sorting out this mess.

    We started our case against Iceland, using their address from Companies house website, asking for 8K for the repairs, 1K for the inconvenience of having to effect said repairs, and interest and costs. We received default Judgement due to lack of Acknowledgement three weeks ago. Thank God - my Dad needs to pay for the repairs and sell his house. He is already delayed by one month. After the sale he is moving in with his fiancee, which will significantly reduce their combined outgoings, by approx. 1K a week.

    The Acknowledgment was due by the 20th June. We filed for Default Judgement on the 21st. We were sent Default on the 22nd.

    a week later, after my father has made significant preparation to get the repairs done, we receive a letter from the solicitor, stating acknowledgement was sent to MCOL on the 22nd and they intended to Defend.

    Another week later we get a letter stating that Iceland only forwarded the initial claim to their solicitor on 22nd June, and in any case, we were suing the wrong party - we needed to sue the tow company, as my father wrote in an email that it was "not Iceland's vehicle that did the damage but the tow trucks." We were invited to end the claim in 7 days or they would send an application to the Court. lol

    I called them, told them that they had 30 days to make payment as of date of Judgement, and that any delay beyond this would result in the delay of the repairs, the subsequent delay in the sale of my father's property, and we would be seeking 1K a week from them in a new claim should this happen.

    We put this warning an email today, on receiving their application to the Court, which states they have a "very real prospect of defending the claim" and intend to do so. They state they received the claim on June 22nd from Iceland and acknowledged the same day.

    I want to know two things really - your opinions on the case, which seems a slam dunk to me, and their chances of getting the Default Judgement overturned.

    I'm a bit mirky on the grounds it can be dismissed and have read different things online - it seems they need to meet two criteria - i.e. file in a timely fashion and prove they have a good chance of mounting a Defence, and possibly a third thing (see here - http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...a-5f46b9d9f0ab ), depending on whether the Courts have, in the last few years, not being taking these applications so lightly - i.e. a Judgement of this size, which is 10K, demands significant reason to be overturned, is not taken lightly by the Judge, and it is only small amounts which might result in Judgments being overturned?

    They have also asked for the application hearing without a hearing.

    At the moment, we are planning to send an email to Court requesting a hearing if the Judge is minded to hear the application out, and we are preparing five Witness statements from family and friends to state unequivocally that the drive has been damaged by the Iceland action, although at the moment they do not seem to be disputing such.
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Taking on Tesco

    Sorry I am slightly dyslexic. Can a mod change the title of the thread to the right name for the Defendant? Ie Iceland.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Taking on Tesco

      Originally posted by friendlyfire View Post
      Sorry I am slightly dyslexic. Can a mod change the title of the thread to the right name for the Defendant? Ie Iceland.
      I'll give our [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] a nudge for you.
      (Every little helps, as they say. )
      CAVEAT LECTOR

      This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

      You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
      Cohen, Herb


      There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
      gets his brain a-going.
      Phelps, C. C.


      "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
      The last words of John Sedgwick

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Taking on Tesco

        Originally posted by friendlyfire View Post
        Sorry I am slightly dyslexic. Can a mod change the title of the thread to the right name for the Defendant? Ie Iceland.
        Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
        I'll give our @Kati a nudge for you.
        (Every little helps, as they say. )
        sorted xx
        Debt is like any other trap, easy enough to get into, but hard enough to get out of.

        It doesn't matter where your journey begins, so long as you begin it...

        recte agens confido

        ~~~~~

        Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

        I can be emailed if you need my help loading pictures/documents to your thread. My email address is Kati@legalbeagles.info
        But please include a link to your thread so I know who you are.

        Specialist advice can be sought via our sister site JustBeagle

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Taking on Iceland

          Advice???

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Taking on Iceland

            Hi and welcome.
            So they have applied for set aside.
            Has your father given consent for the application, and if so was it subject to a costs order?
            If contesting the application point out to the court the extent of notice of the claim which Iceland had before service, and between service and making the application.
            Scrutinise the application for errors (it will have been drafted in a hurry, which could lead to mistakes)

            If the application is on the basis that the case was brought against the wrong defendant, it would be interesting to see their argument.
            There appears to be no dispute that Iceland drove on to private property uninvited, and then Iceland instructed a third party to retrieve their vehicle.
            That third party, acting as agents for Iceland, damaged the driveway.
            Iceland are liable for the actions of their agents.
            At least that's how I read the scenario.

            Others?? [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION]

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Taking on Iceland

              I agree with [MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION].

              Law of agency.....doesn't really matter whether the agent was acting with express authority, implied authority or 'apparent' (ostensible) authority.
              CAVEAT LECTOR

              This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

              You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
              Cohen, Herb


              There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
              gets his brain a-going.
              Phelps, C. C.


              "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
              The last words of John Sedgwick

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Taking on Iceland

                I also agree with Des and Charity on this. I am not sure what their solicitors are really suggesting perhaps trying to pull a fast one. Your original contract for delivery was with Iceland and, if it was Iceland who arranged the tow trucks (and not you) then it is Iceland who is liable and they will in turn recover their losses from the tow trucks.

                It would be helpful to see the set aside application form and any witness statement attached to it as to their reasons why it should be set aside. You did mention that they had until 20 June to acknowledge the claim but did you take into account the deemed service for MCOL which is 5 days after the claim form has been issued so it would be 19 days to acknowledge the claim - does that change things?

                If it does, then you should perhaps consider consenting to the set aside as it is an automatic set aside if a default judgment was applied for too early. If it doesn't change anything then they would need to apply for relief from sanctions and the Denton criteria will apply. The courts have been very harsh recently on those who have failed to comply and refused to grant any relief from sanctions. If the claim was sent to Iceland for service and they failed to act quick enough that is generally not an excuse to grant relief however if their solicitors at any point indicated that they have been instructed to accept service for proceedings and you ignored that and sent it to Iceland's registered office, that would also be grounds for set aside as the service of the claim form would be invalid.
                If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                LEGAL DISCLAIMER
                Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Taking on Iceland

                  Hi all and thank you v. much. I will respond ot each post shortly and post their application.

                  Briefly though - to clarify, the Iceland van had no business being on my Dad's property as it had turned up at the wrong address for delivery and driven all the way to the top of the drive, coming through a closed gate, without permission or proviso.
                  [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] - the Default was applied for on the correct date, online, as we were using the Money Claim Online service and would not have been permitted to ask for it if the other side still lawfully had time to acknowledge.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Taking on Iceland

                    THEIR APPLICATION FOR REMOVING THE DEFAULT JUDGEMENT -






                    They have asked for the Default Judgement entered for the Claimant to be set aside and leave to file a Defence as the Defendant has a "real prospect of Defending the claim that the Claimant has made."

                    They have asked for the application to be dealt with without a hearing.

                    The application is dated 7th July.

                    They originally invited my father to withdraw his claim in an email dated 3rd July and gave him a week to respond. I had spoken to them previously on my father's behalf and after seeing the email, called again, left a message, and was called back by the trainee solicitor at the firm who wrote the email, and told her straight we expected the Default paid in 30 days or would start a second claim for the 1K a week due to the hold up in repairs and sale of the house.

                    So I don't know why she is making out that lack of contact from the Claimant directly led her to make this application on 7th July???

                    More to follow...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Taking on Iceland

                      Cheeky buggers, have you submitted a response to their Witness Statement on the set aside? You might want to consider resisting their set aside application since they've not provided any draft defence as to why Tesco is wrongly named as the defendant, especially the fact that they have admitted that Tesco received the claim form on 30 May and that the recovery vehicles were called out to pull the Tesco vehicle away.

                      It is irrelevant as to whether the driver of the Tesco vehicle is specifically at fault, it is the issue that they called a recovery vehicle to remove it from the driveway - that was their doing not yours and so they are responsible for any damage caused by the recovery vehicles.

                      The fact is that Tesco failed completely to file an acknowledgement of service and just because they sent it on to their solicitors that did not preclude Tesco from acknowledging the claim.

                      I can't see how Plexus seem to be of the belief that Tesco is not liable for their own actions.
                      If you have a question about the voluntary termination process, please read this guide first, as it should have all the answers you need. Please do not hijack another person's thread as I will not respond to you
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      LEGAL DISCLAIMER
                      Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Taking on Iceland

                        [MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION] - no we have not given them our permission to send an application. Should we tell them/the Court we do not consent? And tell the Court too? What do you mean by "subject to a costs order?"
                        [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] - can you tell me whether the Denton Criteria is to our advantage here? The solicitors were liaising with my Father only in the capacity of insurance negotiators and were sent quotes and photos to proceed with the insurance claim. They then ignored six weeks of warnings from my father that we would take Tesco to Court if they did not hurry up. At no stage did they or Tesco advise that they should be the agent for service of a legal claim.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Taking on Iceland

                          I am easily confused... which supermarket delivery van caused the problem, and which supermarket was named on the claim form?

                          I meant you should submit a response to their witness statement as [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] also suggests post 11

                          RE costs order: a request that if the set aside application is successful the court order that his costs for the rehearing of the claim would be met by the applicant.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Taking on Iceland

                            The thread starts off with Iceland being surd but then contains legal paperwork naming Tesco ?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Taking on Iceland

                              Ah okay was trying to hide the real Defendant's name, kinds paranoid...

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                              Working...
                              X