Tweet
Re: Reston County Court Claim
I personally cannot see how it is a requirement for that wording to be included otherwise your right for disclosure is lost. What if the disclosure is made by email, are they entitled to scanning costs and email costs, and if so how does that work out?
The CPR does not specifically state that it must be mentioned when making a request for disclosure, just that they undertake to pay. The undertaking could even be made after the other side have calculated their reasonable copying costs after some negotiation - so it does not need to be in the initial letter.
If we are being a stickler here, the letter doesn't stipulate how the copies are to be made, there could be disclosure by email and therefore no costs will arise out of this - no losses for ink or paper and i'd love to hear how you can claim costs on scanning or emailing a document when that function is already built into the printer itself!
Equally the fact that the letter is titled request for documents under CPR 31.14, could be inferred as saying that the person requesting the documents is aware that reasonable copying costs are applicable and already agreed when sending the letter. If they disagreed, then they wouldn't have sent the letter in the first place.
Its the equivalent of saying that a claim must be struck out because the particulars of claim refers to fraudulent misrepresentation and not the proper term, tort of deceit - things like that are a nonsense. Even if someone could argue something as silly as that, the OP could simply say on the day that they undertake to pay copying costs, or alternatively request no costs are required if sent by email.
At the very best, its a minor, minor procedural error which can be easily corrected so its not fatal to any application and there are far worse breaches in which relief has been granted such as cases not being struck out where trial bundles have not been served or the incorrect fees have been paid.
@xxjennxx Just reference the Agreement (account number XXXX). For ME II to legally sue you, the agreement must have been legally assigned to them and it is a requirement for you to be notified of such an assignment. A formal demand I am presuming is a demand to pay the outstanding balance.
It is extremely unlikely that the claimant would try to charge a LIP for the production of the documentation but without your undertaking to pay you wouldn't be successful if you had to make an application.
The CPR does not specifically state that it must be mentioned when making a request for disclosure, just that they undertake to pay. The undertaking could even be made after the other side have calculated their reasonable copying costs after some negotiation - so it does not need to be in the initial letter.
If we are being a stickler here, the letter doesn't stipulate how the copies are to be made, there could be disclosure by email and therefore no costs will arise out of this - no losses for ink or paper and i'd love to hear how you can claim costs on scanning or emailing a document when that function is already built into the printer itself!
Equally the fact that the letter is titled request for documents under CPR 31.14, could be inferred as saying that the person requesting the documents is aware that reasonable copying costs are applicable and already agreed when sending the letter. If they disagreed, then they wouldn't have sent the letter in the first place.
Its the equivalent of saying that a claim must be struck out because the particulars of claim refers to fraudulent misrepresentation and not the proper term, tort of deceit - things like that are a nonsense. Even if someone could argue something as silly as that, the OP could simply say on the day that they undertake to pay copying costs, or alternatively request no costs are required if sent by email.
At the very best, its a minor, minor procedural error which can be easily corrected so its not fatal to any application and there are far worse breaches in which relief has been granted such as cases not being struck out where trial bundles have not been served or the incorrect fees have been paid.
@xxjennxx Just reference the Agreement (account number XXXX). For ME II to legally sue you, the agreement must have been legally assigned to them and it is a requirement for you to be notified of such an assignment. A formal demand I am presuming is a demand to pay the outstanding balance.
Comment