1. Judgment was improperly entered on 3 July 2025 despite a defence having been submitted and acknowledged by the court. This has now been rectified administratively by the court, which issued an order on 18 July 2025 confirming that a response was filed before judgment and that judgment has been set aside accordingly.
2. Your statement that “the matter is now closed” is factually and procedurally nonsensical. A set-aside order restores the claim to the pre-judgment stage. It does not dispose of the underlying proceedings. Unless and until your client files and serves a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279), the case remains live and I will treat it as such.
• If, by “the matter is now closed,” you mean that your client does not intend to pursue the claim further, then you are required—under CPR 38.3—to file a formal discontinuance and serve it upon the Defendant.
• If that is not your intention, then you will kindly cease issuing misleading statements that appear designed to confuse or deter a litigant in person from responding appropriately.
3. If your firm is genuinely unaware of this basic distinction, you are advised to refer this matter to a responsible adult within your practice—ideally one who has read Part 12 and Part 38 of the Civil Procedure Rules and can distinguish between the setting aside of a judgment and the termination of a claim.
4. Your vague reference to a “bar” being “put in place” on 21 July 2025 appears to be fiction. The court record, and indeed the Order dated 18 July, makes no mention of such a procedural step. If this is not a fabrication, please produce the relevant court order or stop wasting everyone’s time with invented terminology.
5. Your refusal to provide documents requested in the Letter of Claim response, on the grounds that they are “disproportionate or not relevant,” reveals a worrying misunderstanding of your obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It is not for you to cherry-pick compliance. The Defendant is entitled to inspect any documents upon which your client intends to rely, and your selective approach is noted.
6. Finally, your own timeline confirms that the Letter of Claim response was received before proceedings were issued, but your staff failed to process it in time. That is your failing—not mine—and neither the Defendant nor the court should be expected to tolerate the fallout from your administrative incompetence.