Process Server messed up

mgbgt1978

Hi all, just wondering what normally happens in this situation.
Mid-december a guy climbed over a locked gate (with a 'no Trespassing' notice) and knocked on our Front door.
My Wife answered the door and this guy just kept repeating the words "Is X in ?, Where's X ?
After a few minutes my Wife finally managed to reply "I don't know who you are talking about. There is no X here".
He then shoved an A4 envelope at her (which she instinctively just held) and shouted at her "make sure X gets that".
He then walked back down the Driveway, climbed back out and walked up the road.
As he was walking away I came in through the Back Door and my Wife explained the situation.
A quick look at the envelope showed that it was addressed to a person who lives about a kilometer away. There is no connection between his name or mine and a quick google maps search of just his house name would pinpoint his residence.
We were due to contact our Solicitor that week anyway regarding another matter so my Wife phoned him within 10 minutes of this occurrence.
He duly phoned the Solicitors who had sent the envelope and explained the situation.
The Partner he spoke to was very contrite and our solicitor told him that if he wished we would drop the envelope into his office and it could be collected there (my wife didn't fancy another visit from the Server as she found him more than intimidating).
Anyway, our solicitor asked if we wished to go further with this and we told him that all we wanted was an apology and perhaps a small gesture (we mentioned a €50 gift voucher or similar).
Since then, despite numerous phone calls from our Solicitor the Solicitors who contracted the Process Server have refused to accept any form of responsibility. They will not apologise and say that it the fault of the Process Server. Despite this they will not name the Process Server's company, as apparently he is their "Client" ?

The documents in question concern a High Court case regarding a fairly substantial amount of unpaid money.
Can anyone tell me what usually happens in cases like this where the Servers messed up and upset an innocent party ?
Can I make a formal complaint to the High Court Chairman ? Do I inform the Solicitor's Clients of their incompetence ?
If the Solicitor who engaged the Process Server had simply apologised for the shambolic attempt to serve a Document I wouldn't be writing this, but they seem determined not to do anything.
BTW we are in a rural area about 200km from Dublin, where the Solicitors and Process Servers are located.
Thanks for any answers.

edit; As I understand it, the Server must 1st establish that they have the person named on the Document and they must also show this person either the Original or a copy of this document. Neither of these happened on this occasion

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Not enough information to know whether the solicitor is vicariously liable for the acts of the process server. The process server may not be an employee.

Even if the solicitor is liable, I'm not seeing much of a liability. Coming onto premises in order to knock on the front door and speak to a householder, if a trespass, is a very minor one, and not one that would normally attract an award of damages. Rudeness to your wife is bloody rude, but rudeness is not in itself a tort. I'm suprised that the solicitors firm isn't making a gesture to you as a matter of goodwill, but your chances of getting an award of compensation through the courts are negligible.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what usually happens in cases like this where the Servers messed up and upset an innocent party ?

What usually happens in a case like this is that you get an apology.

Pat Mustard

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Can I make a formal complaint to the High Court Chairman ? Do I inform the Solicitor's Clients of their incompetence ?
If the Solicitor who engaged the Process Server had simply apologised for the shambolic attempt to serve a Document I wouldn't be writing this, but they seem determined not to do anything.
BTW we are in a rural area about 200km from Dublin, where the Solicitors and Process Servers are located.
Thanks for any answers.

You say that your solicitor spoke to a partner in the firm who was very contrite. If you think that you should pursue this matter, you could write to that solicitor or else the managing partner in the firm.

If the incident that you described had happened to me, I'd simply ring the solicitor who wrote the letter and explain the situation. If an apology was forthcoming, I'd accept that. If not, I don't think that I would pursue the matter further, personally.

Claw Hammer

Write a letter of complaint to the Law Society. The Data protection Commissioner should have been notified of the situation as well.

Pat Mustard

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Write a letter of complaint to the Law Society. The Data protection Commissioner should have been notified of the situation as well.

Seems a bit excessive, in my view.

Mr. Incognito

Can anyone tell me what usually happens in cases like this where the Servers messed up and upset an innocent party ?

Nothing. He entered your property unlawfully and handed you an envelope. He didnt threaten you with a gun.

The service will be deemed no good and he will not get paid for his incompetence.

You are not entitled to any compensation and you are wasting your time

Write a letter of complaint to the Law Society. The Data protection Commissioner should have been notified of the situation as well.

The solicitor is not responsible for an idiot server. Get real.

The Data Protection Commissioner- that's a novel one. Technically the person whose information was shared would have to make the complaint.

My advice. Get on with your life and forget it.

mgbgt1978

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The solicitor is not responsible for an idiot server.

This company are refusing to name the Process Servers.
They are claiming that the Servers are Clients of theirs in this instance and therefore they cannot name them. That is an idiotic statement in itself.

We are not particularly looking for compensation per se, just an acknowledgement that the issue occurred and an apology for that fact.

All we would like is simply an apology from either the Solicitors or the servers. As neither is willing to do so I feel that a complaint to some Legal Body (or perhaps notify the Client who engaged the Solicitors) would at least make them concentrate a bit more in future when locating the Person on whom they wish to serve a High Court Statement of Claim.

I understand your 'Get on with your life' intentions, but some days I just have too much time on my hands and if it doesn't cost me anything then I am often inclined to get some 'closure' on a few things.

Claw Hammer

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Nothing. He entered your property unlawfully and handed you an envelope. He didnt threaten you with a gun.

The service will be deemed no good and he will not get paid for his incompetence.

You are not entitled to any compensation and you are wasting your time



The solicitor is not responsible for an idiot server. Get real.

The Data Protection Commissioner- that's a novel one. Technically the person whose information was shared would have to make the complaint.

My advice. Get on with your life and forget it.

The idiot server is the solicitors agent. Get real. If a builder I emply damages my neighbours house, I will be held liable. The server or the solicitor should have notified the data protection Commissioner that there has been a data breach. If they haven't notified the Data protection Commissioner a crime has been committed and anyone can complain about that fact. The person whose data was shared can also complain about their rights being breached.

Mr. Incognito

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

This company are refusing to name the Process Servers.
They are claiming that the Servers are Clients of theirs in this instance and therefore they cannot name them. That is an idiotic statement in itself.

We are not particularly looking for compensation per se, just an acknowledgement that the issue occurred and an apology for that fact.

All we would like is simply an apology from either the Solicitors or the servers. As neither is willing to do so I feel that a complaint to some Legal Body (or perhaps notify the Client who engaged the Solicitors) would at least make them concentrate a bit more in future when locating the Person on whom they wish to serve a High Court Statement of Claim.

I understand your 'Get on with your life' intentions, but some days I just have too much time on my hands and if it doesn't cost me anything then I am often inclined to get some 'closure' on a few things.

Thats ridiculous? "Closure"? An idiot handed you an envelope. What do you want -Counselling?

The solicitors, while embarrassed at hiring a person who appears incompetent are not going to be able to held responsible for their actions.

The idiot server is the solicitors agent. Get real. If a builder I emply damages my neighbours house, I will be held liable.

Yes. Absolutely. In that case there is DAMAGE and a cause of action.

In this case there is no DAMAGE. Just someone with hurt feelings angling for some compo for their hurt feelings and an apology.

The server or the solicitor should have notified the data protection Commissioner that there has been a data breach. If they haven't notified the Data protection Commissioner a crime has been committed and anyone can complain about that fact. The person whose data was shared can also complain about their rights being breached

It is correct to say the person whose data has been shared can make a complaint. Good luck with that seeing as they werent served.

Claw Hammer

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Thats ridiculous? "Closure"? An idiot handed you an envelope. What do you want -Counselling?

The solicitors, while embarrassed at hiring a person who appears incompetent are not going to be able to held responsible for their actions.



Yes. Absolutely. In that case there is DAMAGE and a cause of action.

In this case there is no DAMAGE. Just someone with hurt feelings angling for some compo for their hurt feelings and an apology.



It is correct to say the person whose data has been shared can make a complaint. Good luck with that seeing as they werent served.

Trespass is actionable without proof of damage. The summons server caused the solicitors to be responsible for trespass. They are despicable cretins to carry on the way they have.

mgbgt1978

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

In this case there is no DAMAGE. Just someone with hurt feelings angling for some compo for their hurt feelings and an apology. .

I never mentioned compensation. Mainly an apology and perhaps a small gesture. Don't put words in my mouth.

whomitconcerns

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

In this case there is no DAMAGE. Just someone with hurt feelings angling for some compo for their hurt feelings and an apology. .

I never mentioned compensation. Mainly an apology and perhaps a small gesture. Don't put words in my mouth.

Erm you specifically said 50 quid. That's more than a small gesture.

mgbgt1978

I mentioned a €50 voucher ,or similar, as an example of a gesture. I never specifically said that I wanted €50 compensation.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Del2005

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Hi all, just wondering what normally happens in this situation.
Mid-december a guy climbed over a locked gate (with a 'no Trespassing' notice) and knocked on our Front door.
My Wife answered the door and this guy just kept repeating the words "Is X in ?, Where's X ?
After a few minutes my Wife finally managed to reply "I don't know who you are talking about. There is no X here".
He then shoved an A4 envelope at her (which she instinctively just held) and shouted at her "make sure X gets that".
He then walked back down the Driveway, climbed back out and walked up the road.
As he was walking away I came in through the Back Door and my Wife explained the situation.
A quick look at the envelope showed that it was addressed to a person who lives about a kilometer away. There is no connection between his name or mine and a quick google maps search of just his house name would pinpoint his residence.
We were due to contact our Solicitor that week anyway regarding another matter so my Wife phoned him within 10 minutes of this occurrence.
He duly phoned the Solicitors who had sent the envelope and explained the situation.
The Partner he spoke to was very contrite and our solicitor told him that if he wished we would drop the envelope into his office and it could be collected there (my wife didn't fancy another visit from the Server as she found him more than intimidating).
Anyway, our solicitor asked if we wished to go further with this and we told him that all we wanted was an apology and perhaps a small gesture (we mentioned a €50 gift voucher or similar).
Since then, despite numerous phone calls from our Solicitor the Solicitors who contracted the Process Server have refused to accept any form of responsibility. They will not apologise and say that it the fault of the Process Server. Despite this they will not name the Process Server's company, as apparently he is their "Client" ?

The documents in question concern a High Court case regarding a fairly substantial amount of unpaid money.
Can anyone tell me what usually happens in cases like this where the Servers messed up and upset an innocent party ?
Can I make a formal complaint to the High Court Chairman ? Do I inform the Solicitor's Clients of their incompetence ?
If the Solicitor who engaged the Process Server had simply apologised for the shambolic attempt to serve a Document I wouldn't be writing this, but they seem determined not to do anything.
BTW we are in a rural area about 200km from Dublin, where the Solicitors and Process Servers are located.
Thanks for any answers.

edit; As I understand it, the Server must 1st establish that they have the person named on the Document and they must also show this person either the Original or a copy of this document. Neither of these happened on this occasion

What are the implications of opening a high court order addressed to someone else at a different property? I know it's illegal to open someone else's mail, what about hand delivered/ hand served documents?

mgbgt1978

It is not mail as it didn't pass through the postal system. Also it is only an offence to interfere with mail while it is in the hands of An Post.
Once delivered it is no longer considered to be mail.

All moot anyway as in this instance the envelope was hand delivered. Therefore it wouldn't be covered under the postal and telecommunications act.

Peregrinus

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

It is not mail as it didn't pass through the postal system. Also it is only an offence to interfere with mail while it is in the hands of An Post.
Once delivered it is no longer considered to be mail.

All moot anyway as in this instance the envelope was hand delivered. Therefore it wouldn't be covered under the postal and telecommunications act.

All this is correct.

Neverhtheless, the OP shouldn't be banging on about a data breach here. If there was a data breach, the OP wasn't the victim of it; more one of the perpetrators. He had an envelope addressed to someone else which had clearly been misdelivered to him, and he opened it.

mgbgt1978

I (the OP) never once mentioned the words data breach, never mind banging on about it.

Pat Mustard

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

I mentioned a €50 voucher ,or similar, as an example of a gesture. I never specifically said that I wanted €50 compensation.

You could pick up the phone, speak to the relevant solicitor and explain that you are annoyed at what happened. If he/she says sorry, you'll be able to close off the issue.

mgbgt1978

Peregrinus wrote: »

If there was a data breach, the OP wasn't the victim of it; more one of the perpetrators. He had an envelope addressed to someone else which had clearly been misdelivered to him, and he opened it.

Perhaps if the idiot who delivered the letter did as he is legally supposed to do there wouldn't be a 'misdelivery'.
He didn't ensure he had the person named on the document. He didn't produce the original document (or a copy).
He ignored my wife's insistence that X doesn't reside here.
I couldn't just drop the envelope to the guy named on it, as that would technically make me the 'server'.
The only way to find out who had actually contracted the Server was to open the envelope.
If that puts me in the position of being a 'perpetrator' then please tell me how else I could have dealt with this at the time.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You could pick up the phone, speak to the relevant solicitor and explain that you are annoyed at what happened. If he/she says sorry, you'll be able to close off the issue.

If only......I have rang this company on several occasions, but cannot get past the receptionist.

Peregrinus

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Perhaps if the idiot who delivered the letter did as he is legally supposed to do there wouldn't be a 'misdelivery'.
He didn't ensure he had the person named on the document. He didn't produce the original document (or a copy).
He ignored my wife's insistence that X doesn't reside here.
I couldn't just drop the envelope to the guy named on it, as that would technically make me the 'server'.
The only way to find out who had actually contracted the Server was to open the envelope.
If that puts me in the position of being a 'perpetrator' then please tell me how else I could have dealt with this at the time.

Oh, I probably would have done exactly what you did. But I wouldn't be complaining afterwards about data breaches.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

If only......I have rang this company on several occasions, but cannot get past the receptionist.

You have previously contacted the offending solicitors through your own solicitor. Once you have done that, it is unprofessional for him to deal with you directly; it looks as though he's trying to cut your solicitor - the one that you instructed in this matter - out of the loop.

Look, I understand your upset and frustration. You are completely justified. But you are flogging a dead horse here. You are absolutely entitled to a sincere apology, but an apology that you have to extract by main force is really not worth having. As for a gesture in the form of a restaurant voucher or a bunch of flowers - well, that would be nice. But it's not something you're entitled to.

mgbgt1978

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, I probably would have done exactly what you did. But I wouldn't be complaining afterwards about data breaches

I have never complained about data breaches in this thread.
I mentioned once that now I know something personal about a neighbour ( which I'm sure would upset him), but as far as any data protection issues go I really am not bothered.
Anyway,it looks like this is the end of the matter.

4ensic15

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

I have never complained about data breaches in this thread.
I mentioned once that now I know something personal about a neighbour ( which I'm sure would upset him), but as far as any data protection issues go I really am not bothered.
Anyway,it looks like this is the end of the matter.

I wouldn't let it go. A letter to the Law Society Complaint & Client Relations Committee might put manners on that solicitor.

mgbgt1978

From what I'm told the Law Society are really only concerned with complaints from Clients of the Solicitor.

Peregrinus

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

From what I'm told the Law Society are really only concerned with complaints from Clients of the Solicitor.

The law society are concerned about actions or behaviours which bring the profession into disrepute. But I have to say that in this case the misbehaviour was that of the process server, who may not be an employee of the solicitor. In fact, in this case we're told that the solicitors say the process server was a client of theirs, which may in fact mean that the client who has instructed them to sue someone has elected to use their own staff to serve the proceedings, presumably in order to save on the costs of retaining a summons server. If that's the case the solicitor really isn't responsible for the incompetent way in which the proceedings were served. (Indeed, strictly speaking, the way in which they weren't served.)

Pat Mustard

4ensic15 wrote: »

I wouldn't let it go. A letter to the Law Society Complaint & Client Relations Committee might put manners on that solicitor.

The fault lies at the hands of the summons server.

The solicitor may be the only person who is available to blame but that does not mean that it is an appropriate or proportionate response to attempt to blame the solicitor in this instance.

This is a storm in a teacup.

skallywag

I empathize with the OP's grievance here.

That said I myself would have handled it differently, I would have directly called the solicitor in question, explained exactly what had happenned, and expected an apology. If one was forthcoming I would have been happy to leave it at that.

The suggestion of a 50 Euro voucher etc. is in my opinion both completely inappropraite and unnecessary.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

The law society are concerned about actions or behaviours which bring the profession into disrepute. But I have to say that in this case the misbehaviour was that of the process server, who may not be an employee of the solicitor. In fact, in this case we're told that the solicitors say the process server was a client of theirs, which may in fact mean that the client who has instructed them to sue someone has elected to use their own staff to serve the proceedings, presumably in order to save on the costs of retaining a summons server. If that's the case the solicitor really isn't responsible for the incompetent way in which the proceedings were served. (Indeed, strictly speaking, the way in which they weren't served.)

The solicitor is the solicitor who is on record in the proceedings. It is inappropriate for the solicitor to allow the client to serve the proceedings. The solicitor will have to provide proof of service if no appearance is entered and would be utterly compromised if it turned out that there had been no service and that the person swearing the affidavit of service had a material interest in the proceedings. The solicitor is responsible for ensuring that service is effected properly and is responsible for negligence if he instructs incompetent counsel or any other person. The solicitor is an officer of the court and should be concerned about what happened.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.