Cam Chain snapped on new van after 20 months / 114k miles

[Frank1]

The AI you are using is like you have your own personal lawyer answering your legal questions free of charge.
The AI has provided the same answer I would have given, no you don't need to file another DQ
The defendants can respond you don't have court permission to file a reply but I'm not convinced permission is required to file a Reply to Defence.
Your email to the court is fine.

[WhiteVanMan5]

I'm just using a generic AI (Google Gemini). It's helpful, but does get an awful lot wrong (and then tries to gaslight you that it isn't wrong)

[WhiteVanMan5]

Ok, I have just sent both documents (N265 and response to amended defence).

I have received the list of documents from the defendant. Strangely, they were sent to me personally without copying in the Part 20 defendant. I presume they have their own copy. Is this normal to send seperately? Nothing that really stands out (from a quick glance). I will post a redacted version shortly. Their N265 has been completed very differently to mine. I should have checked here the final version of my N265.

Nothing received from the Part 20 defendant yet.

[WhiteVanMan5]

This probably isn't much help as it doesn't really say what the corresponadance is.

[WhiteVanMan5]

This is their N265

[WhiteVanMan5]

I have 7 days to tell them what documents I want them to provide. Do I just ask for everything?

[WhiteVanMan5]

What do I do about the lack of N265 from the Part 20 Defendant? Do I draw the court attention to it?

[Frank1]

The court is less strict about deadlines in the SMC than other tracks and your claim is in the SMC for the time being.
N265 document list including all the searches to complete the form are not normally used in the SMC. It seems over the top for a £9k claim.
My advice is to wait until next week and if you haven't received anything from the second defendant, send an email reminding them about the documents list.
No need to ask for all documents, just the ones you are unsure of what they are and those you don't have a copy of such as correspondence between the defendants.

[WhiteVanMan5]

I emailed the Part 20 Defendant (copying in the first defendant), first thing Monday morning, drawing their attention to the lack of document exchange from them and offered an extended deadline of 1pm Wednesday (tomorrow). AI has prepared this response for me if they miss that deadline as well. Anything wrong with it?

Dear Court Manager,

I am writing as the Litigant in Person Claimant to formally notify the Court of a serious and ongoing breach of directions by the Part 20 Defendant, ********** Limited.

Pursuant to Paragraph 5.1 of the Allocation and Directions Order of Deputy District Judge ********** dated 26 March 2026, all parties were ordered to give to each other a list of documents they intend to rely on at trial by 4:00pm on 20 May 2026.

The Claimant and the First Defendant (***************) have fully complied with this direction and successfully exchanged their respective Form N265 lists on time.

The Part 20 Defendant failed to comply with the deadline. As a courtesy, the Claimant granted a voluntary extension until 1:00pm today, Wednesday 27 May 2026, to allow the Part 20 Defendant to remedy the breach. This extended deadline has now passed, and no disclosure list has been received.

The Part 20 Defendant remains in explicit breach of a mandatory Court Order. The Court will note from Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Order dated 26 March 2026 that the Part 20 Defendant has already previously required relief from sanctions in these proceedings.

I respectfully request that this notification be placed on the court file immediately so that the allocated trial Judge is fully aware of the Part 20 Defendant's non-compliance ahead of the upcoming milestones.

The Claimant reserves the right to seek standard sanctions at trial pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 31.21 (debarring the Part 20 Defendant from relying on any documentary evidence) or to file a formal application for an "Unless Order" should the progression of the claim be further compromised.

Yours faithfully,

************ (Claimant)

[Frank1]

Your email to the court is fine. Don't forget to copy it to both defendants.
I find it difficult to believe that the defendants are going to share the cost of the SJE's investigation and report. The scope of the report is defined as establishing whether your van was satisfactory quality at the time of purchase. Now Stellantis have confirmed the van was fitted with an engine built with the defective chain that may stretch or snap without warning, the van is clearly not of satisfactory quality when you purchased it new.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Interesting development today.

I had a phone call from the inspector who wrote my reports. He let me know that the part 20 defendant called him. He didn't identify himself as the part 20 defendant, but used his proper name (the Inspector did not at that point realise who he was talking to). The part 20 defendant had a chat with him about general advice in the scenario where a camshaft chain snapped and destroyed the engine. I believe the Part 20 defendant suggested he was in that situation. He used the correct details, the right van, the right mileage etc and eventually the inspector twigged and said he couldn't discuss it any more because there was a conflict of interest (and stated that he would notify me about the phone call). At this point the Part 20 defendant said that he had not seen my inspector report (at first I was dubious, but on reflection - it was provided to the defendant before legal action commenced - so the Part 20 Claimant might not have passed it on to the Part 20 defendant) and that he didn't know the inspector had written my report (that's pretty incredible if true, the inspector has a pretty unique surname and "the surname report" has been referred to in the court documents from myself and the defendant a huge amount of time). The only way that could be the case is if the Part 20 defendant is not on top of the case (possibly the case with the court order breaches)

One discussion they had was whether a van having done 10 years worth of mileage would be laughed out of court if claimed to be not durable - my inspector said not necessarily.

At first, I assumed he was fishing to see what the inspector would say if he was the SJE. But on reflection - I find it more likely that he genuinely didn't connect the dots and was fishing for a sympathetic expert. This inspector is the obvious one that comes up given location and qualifications if you do a search online.

I'm concerned about this - how can a SJE be independent if the defence is fishing for sympathetic experts? How can I avoid this? Presumably any expert they suggest has been pre vetted by them!

In other news - Yesterday I requested all documents from the defence - wasn't my intention (in line with your advice) however I simply ran out of time (without taking a day off work!!) to sort through it properly. Neither defence nor part 20 defence requested any documents from me before the deadline. Surprising because I produced new evidence - the email from Vauxhall - that they haven't seen!

[WhiteVanMan5]

I missed the email initially, but this afternoon the defence sent me the below. It appears to contain all of the documents and a request for some of my documents. I can understand the Part 20 defendant being disorganised and missing deadlines, but the firm of solicitors too? I'm tempted to co-operate and just send them the documents they requested. Any thoughts on that?

"Thank you for your email.

Pursuant to paragraph 5.2 of the Order dated 26 March 2026, please find attached a copy of all the documents requested.

In return, we would be grateful if you could provide us with documents 30 to 43 from your Disclosure List. These documents are relevant to the fair resolution of the claim and, if possible, to resolve this matter without further proceedings.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise, I look forward to receiving documents 30 to 43 from your Disclosure List."

[Frank1]

Make a diary note of your call with the inspector. Next week send your email to both defendants proposing that your inspector be appointed the SJE. State the advantages including the potential cost saving (your inspector has already carried out dismantling the engine to inspect the affected parts).
You should be wary about accepting any alternative inspector as SJE. Your right, the 2nd defendant does appear to be fishing to find an inspector that will give an opinion that tallies with their defences in respect of the very high mileage.
It does sound as if you are going to need to make an application. Refer to my previous posts about this.

Are you saying you didn't attach all your documents? If you didn't some of your documents may not be included in the trial bundle. You could confirm this with the solicitor.

[Frank1]

In the SMC witness statements along with evidence are filed and exchanged a few weeks before the trial date.
The court directions for your claim although allocated in SMC, follow the fast track. In this track documents aren't filed just exchanged earlier on in the process. Document lists and documents should be included in their own section in the trial bundle. This means a party when drafting their witness statement can refer to documents in the trial bundle provided the documents have been marked with a reference

[Frank1]

Further to my previous post:
clause 11.15 on pages 66 and 67 of the guidance. "A Handbook for Litigants in Person".