MCOL (Money Claim Online) Directions Questionnaire. Help pls
Discussion
I've issued an MCOL on an organisation (relates to damage they caused to a vehicle).
They have submitted a defence and the claim has been allocated to the Small Claims Track.
However, they have submitted/served the incorrect Directions Questionnaire using the form for the 'Fast Track and Multi Track', N181 instead of N180. The forms are significantly different, for example N181 does not have the option to use the Small Claims Mediation Service.
How will the court view this error? Can I get the Defence struck out?
They have submitted a defence and the claim has been allocated to the Small Claims Track.
However, they have submitted/served the incorrect Directions Questionnaire using the form for the 'Fast Track and Multi Track', N181 instead of N180. The forms are significantly different, for example N181 does not have the option to use the Small Claims Mediation Service.
How will the court view this error? Can I get the Defence struck out?
Pro Bono said:
The court will just write to them telling them to file the correct DQ.
No, you wouldn't be able to have the claim struck out for a simple mistake like that.
Thank you. Much appreciated. No, you wouldn't be able to have the claim struck out for a simple mistake like that.
One of those occasions where I feel that I I got it wrong everything would fall apart, but when the other side get it wrong everything is hunky dory!
In my thankfully limited experience as a Defendant in small claims the fact that its your average person that ends up on that track more often than not means that a lot of latitude is given for procedural and documentation errors.
I did everything as ordered by the Judge, on time, providing copies to the Claimant as necessary, posting as Special Delivery to ensure receipt, etc. The Claimant did none of this, I never got his DQ, and he emailed me (not the Court) his Witness Statement 4 hours after the deadline to send it. My WS was 4 sides of A4 with 73 pages of exhibits. His claim was one paragraph and my defence was a point by point rebuttal.
The Judge in my case gave the Claimant multiple attempts to comply with his Orders, including three Unless Orders that came and went without consequence. I ended up emailing the Court proactively after each deadline was missed, to try and encourage some resolution.
I did everything as ordered by the Judge, on time, providing copies to the Claimant as necessary, posting as Special Delivery to ensure receipt, etc. The Claimant did none of this, I never got his DQ, and he emailed me (not the Court) his Witness Statement 4 hours after the deadline to send it. My WS was 4 sides of A4 with 73 pages of exhibits. His claim was one paragraph and my defence was a point by point rebuttal.
The Judge in my case gave the Claimant multiple attempts to comply with his Orders, including three Unless Orders that came and went without consequence. I ended up emailing the Court proactively after each deadline was missed, to try and encourage some resolution.
Durzel said:
In my thankfully limited experience as a Defendant in small claims the fact that its your average person that ends up on that track more often than not means that a lot of latitude is given for procedural and documentation errors.
I did everything as ordered by the Judge, on time, providing copies to the Claimant as necessary, posting as Special Delivery to ensure receipt, etc. The Claimant did none of this, I never got his DQ, and he emailed me (not the Court) his Witness Statement 4 hours after the deadline to send it. My WS was 4 sides of A4 with 73 pages of exhibits. His claim was one paragraph and my defence was a point by point rebuttal.
The Judge in my case gave the Claimant multiple attempts to comply with his Orders, including three Unless Orders that came and went without consequence. I ended up emailing the Court proactively after each deadline was missed, to try and encourage some resolution.
How did you get on in the end? I did everything as ordered by the Judge, on time, providing copies to the Claimant as necessary, posting as Special Delivery to ensure receipt, etc. The Claimant did none of this, I never got his DQ, and he emailed me (not the Court) his Witness Statement 4 hours after the deadline to send it. My WS was 4 sides of A4 with 73 pages of exhibits. His claim was one paragraph and my defence was a point by point rebuttal.
The Judge in my case gave the Claimant multiple attempts to comply with his Orders, including three Unless Orders that came and went without consequence. I ended up emailing the Court proactively after each deadline was missed, to try and encourage some resolution.
OP, as noted above, just comply with all orders and directions, and if the other side keep failing to do so, complain to the court, but only if the failure is persistent. Aim to win on the merits, not on procedure. You might be gifted a win if the other side persists in default.
The best general advice about small claims is: never make a small claim. Life is usually too short to litigate. That general rule admits of exceptions, of course.
[RANT] It is widely assumed that the law is technical, and sets a series of malicious traps for the unlearned, and/or that it can be gamed by pranksters playing procedural moves. This is not usually the case. You will encounter technicality if dealing with things such as tax, trusts, financial services, and what not, but quite a lot of the law reflects common sense and reality, and the courts are often interested in effective dispute resolution rather than in silly point scoring and techie faffing about. It is a shame that people are taught by the media, by net and pub chat, and as a consequence of the erosion of civil legal aid that the law is arcane, distant, and unusable.
Teaching people the basics of the law at school would be a good idea, but no government is interested in that, or in wider education in general. Why bother to educate a population most of whom are destined to do McJobs forever? There is also the snag that, if you educate a population, they then stop voting for populist chancers who lie them into doing unwise things, so education (as opposed to box-ticking test-passing) could never be high on the agenda of a cheesy Government that wants to blag its way back in. You might think that the population of a democracy should be taught to appreciate that the law belongs to the people, and not to regard the law with fear and doubt, but that won't happen any time soon either. [/RANT]
The best general advice about small claims is: never make a small claim. Life is usually too short to litigate. That general rule admits of exceptions, of course.
[RANT] It is widely assumed that the law is technical, and sets a series of malicious traps for the unlearned, and/or that it can be gamed by pranksters playing procedural moves. This is not usually the case. You will encounter technicality if dealing with things such as tax, trusts, financial services, and what not, but quite a lot of the law reflects common sense and reality, and the courts are often interested in effective dispute resolution rather than in silly point scoring and techie faffing about. It is a shame that people are taught by the media, by net and pub chat, and as a consequence of the erosion of civil legal aid that the law is arcane, distant, and unusable.
Teaching people the basics of the law at school would be a good idea, but no government is interested in that, or in wider education in general. Why bother to educate a population most of whom are destined to do McJobs forever? There is also the snag that, if you educate a population, they then stop voting for populist chancers who lie them into doing unwise things, so education (as opposed to box-ticking test-passing) could never be high on the agenda of a cheesy Government that wants to blag its way back in. You might think that the population of a democracy should be taught to appreciate that the law belongs to the people, and not to regard the law with fear and doubt, but that won't happen any time soon either. [/RANT]
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 27th July 07:51
Breadvan72 said:
OP, as noted above, just comply with all orders and directions, and if the other side keep failing to do so, complain to the court, but only if the failure is persistent. Aim to win on the merits, not on procedure. You might be gifted a win if the other side persists in default.
The best general advice about small claims is: never make a small claim. Life is usually too short to litigate. That general rule admits of exceptions, of course.
[RANT] It is widely assumed that the law is technical, and sets a series of malicious traps for the unlearned, and/or that it can be gamed by pranksters playing procedural moves. This is not usually the case. You will encounter technicality if dealing with things such as tax, trusts, financial services, and what not, but quite a lot of the law reflects common sense and reality, and the courts are often interested in effective dispute resolution rather than in silly point scoring and techie faffing about. It is a shame that people are taught by the media, by net and pub chat, and as a consequence of the erosion of civil legal aid that the law is arcane, distant, and unusable.
Teaching people the basics of the law at school would be a good idea, but no government is interested in that, or in wider education in general. Why bother to educate a population most of whom are destined to do McJobs forever? There is also the snag that, if you educate a population, they then stop voting for populist chancers who lie them into doing unwise things, so education (as opposed to box-ticking test-passing) could never be high on the agenda of a cheesy Government that wants to blag its way back in. You might think that the population of a democracy should be taught to appreciate that the law belongs to the people, and not to regard the law with fear and doubt, but that won't happen any time soon either. [/RANT]
Sorry. Cock-up in the quoting department. Try again.The best general advice about small claims is: never make a small claim. Life is usually too short to litigate. That general rule admits of exceptions, of course.
[RANT] It is widely assumed that the law is technical, and sets a series of malicious traps for the unlearned, and/or that it can be gamed by pranksters playing procedural moves. This is not usually the case. You will encounter technicality if dealing with things such as tax, trusts, financial services, and what not, but quite a lot of the law reflects common sense and reality, and the courts are often interested in effective dispute resolution rather than in silly point scoring and techie faffing about. It is a shame that people are taught by the media, by net and pub chat, and as a consequence of the erosion of civil legal aid that the law is arcane, distant, and unusable.
Teaching people the basics of the law at school would be a good idea, but no government is interested in that, or in wider education in general. Why bother to educate a population most of whom are destined to do McJobs forever? There is also the snag that, if you educate a population, they then stop voting for populist chancers who lie them into doing unwise things, so education (as opposed to box-ticking test-passing) could never be high on the agenda of a cheesy Government that wants to blag its way back in. You might think that the population of a democracy should be taught to appreciate that the law belongs to the people, and not to regard the law with fear and doubt, but that won't happen any time soon either. [/RANT]
Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 27th July 07:51
I enjoy a good rant almost as much as I enjoy a good conspiracy theory.
Bready, that wasn't bad, but I have seen you do a lot better. Bit early in the day for you? Between 6.5 and 7 out of ten.
I always start early (4am today, because deadlines, meh), but it's an experiment with my auto ranter bot. I need to get the geeks to tweak the settings. There is a serious point in there amongst all the blah. This forum is a daily testament to the fact that people know Jack all about simple legal stuff that is useful in life and which could easily be taught at school, and also shows lots of daft assumptions about how legal stuff happens.
Durzel said:
In my thankfully limited experience as a Defendant in small claims the fact that its your average person that ends up on that track more often than not means that a lot of latitude is given for procedural and documentation errors.
I did everything as ordered by the Judge, on time, providing copies to the Claimant as necessary, posting as Special Delivery to ensure receipt, etc. The Claimant did none of this, I never got his DQ, and he emailed me (not the Court) his Witness Statement 4 hours after the deadline to send it. My WS was 4 sides of A4 with 73 pages of exhibits. His claim was one paragraph and my defence was a point by point rebuttal.
The Judge in my case gave the Claimant multiple attempts to comply with his Orders, including three Unless Orders that came and went without consequence. I ended up emailing the Court proactively after each deadline was missed, to try and encourage some resolution.
Very different to my experience! The judge on my case operated a strict one strike and you're out policy, and it was hilarious to see the defence (fancy lawyers representing a major national retailer) flapping around like headless chickens.I did everything as ordered by the Judge, on time, providing copies to the Claimant as necessary, posting as Special Delivery to ensure receipt, etc. The Claimant did none of this, I never got his DQ, and he emailed me (not the Court) his Witness Statement 4 hours after the deadline to send it. My WS was 4 sides of A4 with 73 pages of exhibits. His claim was one paragraph and my defence was a point by point rebuttal.
The Judge in my case gave the Claimant multiple attempts to comply with his Orders, including three Unless Orders that came and went without consequence. I ended up emailing the Court proactively after each deadline was missed, to try and encourage some resolution.
Defence - can we please have a telephone hearing, the court is miles away from our offices.
Judge - p
s off, you come to my court when I ask you to. Just send the store manager from the local store that this case is about.Defence (after a no-show at the first hearing) - Can you strike out the ruling against us, we haven't had a chance to make our case
Judge - p
s off, you had your chance.It was brilliant.
Hmmmm,..... sort of, given that the party had representation, but that sort of thing can lead to appeals, to satellite litigation, to big costs bills, and can make the mistake of emphasising form over substance.
The Court of Appeal has repeatedly deplored that sort of thing, but DJs sometimes ignore the Court of Appeal, hoping that the money at stake is too little to prompt appeals. The danger is that things then revert to how they were before the 1870s, when procedural niceties prevailed over substantive justice, and litigation became a game of trap and catch.
The opposite approach of too much leeway and anything goes is also bad. I was in the case in which the Court of Appeal tried to lay down the principles for the happy medium, but that case too often gets ignored, and it appears anecdotally that some DJs are erring too much on the side of excessive strictness, and on compliance for the sake of compliance, rather than focusing on what matters.
The Court of Appeal has repeatedly deplored that sort of thing, but DJs sometimes ignore the Court of Appeal, hoping that the money at stake is too little to prompt appeals. The danger is that things then revert to how they were before the 1870s, when procedural niceties prevailed over substantive justice, and litigation became a game of trap and catch.
The opposite approach of too much leeway and anything goes is also bad. I was in the case in which the Court of Appeal tried to lay down the principles for the happy medium, but that case too often gets ignored, and it appears anecdotally that some DJs are erring too much on the side of excessive strictness, and on compliance for the sake of compliance, rather than focusing on what matters.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 27th July 12:44
BMWBen said:
...
Defence - can we please have a telephone hearing, the court is miles away from our offices.
Judge - ps off, you come to my court when I ask you to. Just send the store manager from the local store that this case is about.
...
That store manager, being neither a lawyer nor (very likely) a director of the company, had no rights of audience on behalf of a limited company, especially one that has engaged lawyers. The DJ acted unlawfully. Some DJs just make it up as they go along. That is far from brilliant. Defence - can we please have a telephone hearing, the court is miles away from our offices.
Judge - p
s off, you come to my court when I ask you to. Just send the store manager from the local store that this case is about....
Breadvan72 said:
Hmmmm,..... sort of, given that the party had representation, but that sort of thing can lead to appeals, to satellite litigation, to big costs bills, and can make the mistake of emphasising form over substance.
The Court of Appeal has repeatedly deplored that sort of thing, but DJs sometimes ignore the Court of Appeal, hoping that the money at stake is too little to prompt appeals. The danger is that things then revert to how they were before the 1870s, when procedural niceties prevailed over substantive justice, and litigation became a game of trap and catch.
The opposite approach of too much leeway and anything goes is also bad. I was in the case in which the Court of Appeal tried to lay down the principles for the happy medium, but that case too often gets ignored, and it appears anecdotally that some DJs are erring too much on the side of excessive strictness, and on compliance for the sake of compliance, rather than focusing on what matters.
The latter is how my DJ operated. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly deplored that sort of thing, but DJs sometimes ignore the Court of Appeal, hoping that the money at stake is too little to prompt appeals. The danger is that things then revert to how they were before the 1870s, when procedural niceties prevailed over substantive justice, and litigation became a game of trap and catch.
The opposite approach of too much leeway and anything goes is also bad. I was in the case in which the Court of Appeal tried to lay down the principles for the happy medium, but that case too often gets ignored, and it appears anecdotally that some DJs are erring too much on the side of excessive strictness, and on compliance for the sake of compliance, rather than focusing on what matters.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 27th July 12:44
I guess it encourages a resolution based on the evidence as opposed to abuse of process, but as a first timer it was strange (and annoying) to see that all of these portentous orders and deadlines were essentially all mouth and no trousers. I even phoned the Court after he had failed to pay the hearing fee and was basically told that although it would ultimately be fatal to the case, he could phone up at any point - after the deadline and for some time afterwards - and pay it and it would be processed. The same applied to documentation that was supposedly "required" by an explicit date and time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff