Money Claims Online (MCOL) - particulars of claims

[MrM]

Hi guys,

I am looking for advice from anyone who has used MCOL for a claim (opposed to filling in a physical piece of paper for small claims) and how you approached the particulars of the claim (POC). I am in a dispute which has reached a dead end having tried to find a solution. I have all the correspondence between us on record.

As anyone who has approached this will know, the amount of allowed text for the POC is very little. I have a wealth of correspondence and some physical evidence I would like to submit ahead of any hearing, but the process with regards to disclosing this is not obvious. I am worried that if I am too brief with the POC details it will not do my claim justice or get a chance to submit all the material I would like, but feel including the full history at the outset seems overkill, but perhaps this is what is expected?

Can anyone enlighten me as to what happens after you submit the POC and then by what mechanism you can subsequently supply further information for consideration in the case?

Many thanks

 

[Kemik]

Did you read the user guide that it tells you to read?

If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, please tick the box that appears after the statement ‘you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant’. Please be aware this will then reduce the amount of space left in the main particulars box by three lines. This is because a statement is automatically added explaining you will be serving further particulars. You will be able to see the extra information added in the next screen “Summary”. For more information please see the ‘Serving additional Particulars of Claim’ section.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...684/MCOL_Userguide_for_Claimants_May_2018.pdf

Suggest reading: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=428929 and the rest of the user guide as there are deadlines and procedures for serving the additional particulars.

 

[MrM]

I did indeed, but I don’t need to serve extra particulars on the defendant, the extra particulars would purely be for the benefit of a judge. Sending the particulars to the defendant would simply duplicate correspondence that has already taken place and there is no need for that.

If the first sentence read “or” and not “and” then it would be clear to me, or am I misinterpreting what this sentence means?

 

[Kemik]

I did indeed, but I don’t need to serve extra particulars on the defendant, the extra particulars would purely be for the benefit of a judge. Sending the particulars to the defendant would simply duplicate correspondence that has already taken place and there is no need for that.

If the first sentence read “or” and not “and” then it would be clear to me, or am I misinterpreting what this sentence means?

I assume the judge or whoever decides on the case can see both sets of correspondence of particulars. Never done it myself though.

 

[muon]

I did indeed, but I don’t need to serve extra particulars on the defendant, the extra particulars would purely be for the benefit of a judge. Sending the particulars to the defendant would simply duplicate correspondence that has already taken place and there is no need for that.

If the first sentence read “or” and not “and” then it would be clear to me, or am I misinterpreting what this sentence means?

I'm pretty sure you have to send the defendant detailed particulars, exactly as you intend to rely on them in the hearing. Otherwise the defendant can get it thrown out. (I don't know whether you also have to file the detailed particulars with the court though or just send it to the defendant).

The defendant will have to do the same at a later stage, otherwise you can get it thrown out.

 

[Sudden]

I did indeed, but I don’t need to serve extra particulars on the defendant, the extra particulars would purely be for the benefit of a judge. Sending the particulars to the defendant would simply duplicate correspondence that has already taken place and there is no need for that.

If the first sentence read “or” and not “and” then it would be clear to me, or am I misinterpreting what this sentence means?

You need to serve them on the defendant too. The claim needs to be the central source of truth, so anything you intend to rely on needs to be there, or added to it.

Anything you send to the court should also be sent to the defendant (excepting adminy things).

Note: this is a broad generalisation. Could be specific exceptions to what I've said etc.