MoneyClaim - typo in respondent name
Discussion
I have issued a claim against a company for faulty parts supplied.
Let's call them 'Aloysius Racing' which is nothing like the name but in the midst of getting this online I screwed up and put the equivalent of 'Aloysius Raciing' - the rest like the address which would not have mattered as much I managed not to screw up.
Having emailed the helpdesk they tell me an application to change the respondent name needs a District Judge to grant and £100 fee which is more than the MCOL fee.
My questions:
1. Will the respondent bother to reply to the proceedings?
2. Do they have to given the typo?
2. Should I discontinue that claim and begin afresh now or wait and see?
Let's call them 'Aloysius Racing' which is nothing like the name but in the midst of getting this online I screwed up and put the equivalent of 'Aloysius Raciing' - the rest like the address which would not have mattered as much I managed not to screw up.
Having emailed the helpdesk they tell me an application to change the respondent name needs a District Judge to grant and £100 fee which is more than the MCOL fee.
My questions:
1. Will the respondent bother to reply to the proceedings?
2. Do they have to given the typo?
2. Should I discontinue that claim and begin afresh now or wait and see?
Some years ago I used MCOL but entered the website name rather than the (rather different) limited company name. They ignored the court process so I won judgement by default. Still no response after 14 days so I applied for the warrant.
Here I found that, although you can't change the name, you can change the address. So I inserted "trading as <company ltd>" as the first line of the address and they paid up almost immediately.
Possibly this would appear in a CCJ listing search and they didn't want that.
Here I found that, although you can't change the name, you can change the address. So I inserted "trading as <company ltd>" as the first line of the address and they paid up almost immediately.
Possibly this would appear in a CCJ listing search and they didn't want that.
When I worked in the courts I (and most of my colleagues) was fairly strict about what I would accept when it came to the wording of the defender(s) name in writs, etc.
For example, if the names of a couple were given as "Mr & Mrs John Smith", it would be bounced as it should have been "Mr John Smith and Mrs June Smith".
We'd usually let the solicitor know the reason it was bounced. If however, it had come from one of the (thankfully small) bunch who thought they were God's gift to the legal world, it would be bounced with little or no explanation apart from a terse "Not accepted for warranting - incorrectly worded".
My own record for this was six bounces with a particularly obnoxious young trainee solicitor who thought he was a superior being to me, the non legally qualified Sheriff Clerk.
A few months later he insisted (by complaining to the Regional Sheriff Clerk) that I gave a warrant to serve yet another badly drafted and incorrectly worded summons. The RSC gave me certain advice which I followed to the letter...
The summons was served, no response came from the defenders and in due course Mr Smartarse applied for a decree. Following the advice from my boss, a quick trip upstairs to the Sheriff. Me: "Sheriff, would you take a look at this, please?". Sheriff: "I'm got granting a decree on that!"
The upshot is that the original action was deemed incompetent due to the wording and the whole case had to be started again from scratch!
I'd better add that 99% of the time I would go the extra mile for all court customers.
For example, if the names of a couple were given as "Mr & Mrs John Smith", it would be bounced as it should have been "Mr John Smith and Mrs June Smith".
We'd usually let the solicitor know the reason it was bounced. If however, it had come from one of the (thankfully small) bunch who thought they were God's gift to the legal world, it would be bounced with little or no explanation apart from a terse "Not accepted for warranting - incorrectly worded".
My own record for this was six bounces with a particularly obnoxious young trainee solicitor who thought he was a superior being to me, the non legally qualified Sheriff Clerk.
A few months later he insisted (by complaining to the Regional Sheriff Clerk) that I gave a warrant to serve yet another badly drafted and incorrectly worded summons. The RSC gave me certain advice which I followed to the letter...
The summons was served, no response came from the defenders and in due course Mr Smartarse applied for a decree. Following the advice from my boss, a quick trip upstairs to the Sheriff. Me: "Sheriff, would you take a look at this, please?". Sheriff: "I'm got granting a decree on that!"
The upshot is that the original action was deemed incompetent due to the wording and the whole case had to be started again from scratch!
I'd better add that 99% of the time I would go the extra mile for all court customers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff