Default Judgment - Court Admits Error

[bottomburp]

Re: Default Judgment - Court Admits Error

In response to EXC:
No, I don't think you are a child. To misquote Terrance Rattigan “vous avez des idées au dessus de votre gare”.

__________________________________________________ _______________________

I POSTED THESE AS DIFFERENT POSTS - THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MERGED.
__________________________________________________ _______________

This is in reply to Cetelco:
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

The data can be purchased, by area, for 30p plus vat per record.

Seems a bit sneeky if they can get this information before it's been published. I mean, you fight a court case, lose and have 28 days to pay - that shouldn't mean you're not credit worthy...it just means the Court didn't agree with you.

Once you obtain the second set aside, make sure you write to Registry Trust Limited and inform them that they must remove your details from their records.

We will do this.

Of course, a set aside is not the end of the matter. You will still need to submit a defence, or defence and counter claim and the case will the progress on that basis. Should you lose, the judgment will stand.

We have filed our defence. It was the defence that we sent by recorded delivery and which was signed for by the Court BEFORE the dealine for filing the defence - that's why we're so upset.

We're also arranging for it to be moved to our local court.

The interesting thing is that these are negligent lawyers, though they say they weren't (of course) and they served using a CPR Part 7: used when there is a substantial dispute or when you want to obtain a default judgment. You can't get a default judgment with a CPR Part 8 - which is what you would expect them to use when they say there isn't a substantial dispute... Also they haven't adhered to CPR protocols, no LBA etc etc.

I also read recently that a claim is only valid for 3 days after it is sealed by the Court, so the claim form (dated 3rd Sept) can't have been valid when it was received on 21 & 22 Sept after 14 Sept postage.

All technical I know but they are lawyers, we are LiPs.

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Judgment - Court Admits Error

Bottomburp, If a user makes two posts directly after one another within a certain period of time then they automatically merge, it isn't something anyone has done. Sometimes its annoying but it does help keep threads a bit more concise.

EXC and Bottomburp - I don't think attacking one another is really very constructive, can we sort out anything personal between yourselves by PM and keep the thread to assist bottomburp with the matters in hand.

Thank you.

[bottomburp]

Re: Default Judgment - Court Admits Error

Bottomburp, If a user makes two posts directly after one another within a certain period of time then they automatically merge, it isn't something anyone has done. Sometimes its annoying but it does help keep threads a bit more concise.

Ahha, many thanks for explanation!

EXC and Bottomburp - I don't think attacking one another is really very constructive, can we sort out anything personal between yourselves by PM and keep the thread to assist bottomburp with the matters in hand.

I totally agree with you that this personal attack was unnecessary and uncalled for. I was, frankly, astonished at this personal attack from someone who is, apparently, a senior member of the team and who should know better. I apologise for any offence my response may have caused.