CNBC Failure to Respond Within a Reasonable Time

1. Overview — A 51-Day Administrative Silence Across Two Live Cases M04ZA309 and M00RG751

This disclosure records how the County Court Business Centre (CNBC) failed to respond within any lawful or reasonable timeframe to correspondence relating to:

1. M04ZA309 — Ramdin v Gopal (Civil Claim)
2. M00RG751 — Related Possession Proceedings

The claimant’s correspondence to CNBC was sent on 6 October 2025.

CNBC did not reply until 27 November 2025.

That is a delay of:

1. 51 days in total,
2. 7 weeks and 2 days.

Against HMCTS’s own published standards of 10–20 days (with 28 days as an extended ceiling), CNBC overshot:

1. the 10-day standard by 41 days,
2. the 20-day standard by 31 days,
3. even the 28-day ceiling by 23 days.

This 51-day silence blocked timely correction of the 1 September 2025 possession order and left both cases procedurally exposed.

2. Evidence of Delay

1. 6 October 2025 — Correspondence to CNBC
2. 1 September 2025 — Possession Order (already in force)
3. 27 November 2025 — CNBC Reply

The claimant writes to CNBC regarding case handling in M04ZA309 and M00RG751, requesting clarification and remedial action following the possession order and associated procedural failures.

By the time of the 6 October correspondence, the possession order against the claimant had already been made, with the disrepair counterclaim dismissed and Defence not properly engaged.

CNBC finally replies 51 days after the 6 October correspondence, confirming only that the matter is “with your court” and that CNBC no longer holds the case, without addressing any of the substantive issues raised.

3. Legal Framework Breached

I. Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6(1)

“Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.”

Breach:

CNBC’s delay obstructed timely recourse against the 1 September possession order and prevented progress in both M04ZA309 and M00RG751.

II. Equality Act 2010 — Section 20(3)

“Where a provision, criterion or practice puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage… reasonable steps must be taken.”

Breach:

A declared vulnerable litigant required prompt administrative support.

The delay intensified disadvantage.

III. Equality Act 2010 — Section 21(2)

“Failure to comply with the first requirement is a failure to comply with the duty.”

Breach:

Failure to act promptly constitutes a failure to comply with the reasonable adjustments duty.

IV. Equality Act 2010 — Section 149(1)

“A public authority must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination… and minimise disadvantages suffered by persons with protected characteristics.”

Breach:

CNBC’s delay demonstrated no regard to the impact on a medically vulnerable party.

V. Civil Procedure Rules — CPR 1.1(2)(d)

“Ensuring that cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly.”

Breach:

A 5–7 week delay prevented the expeditious handling of two active cases and perpetuated existing procedural unfairness.

VII. Common Law Fairness

“Public authorities must act promptly where decisions affect individual rights.”

Breach:

CNBC’s delay adversely affected rights under both landlord proceedings.

4. Procedural Impact Across Both Cases

Impact on M00RG751 — Possession Claim

1. The defective possession order remained unchallenged.
2. The delay prevented timely application for set-aside.
3. The claimant was exposed to enforcement without correction.

Impact on M04ZA309 — Civil Claim

1. Counterclaim was wrongfully dismissed as “abuse of process”.
2. CNBC delay prevented rectification or clarification.
3. Key filings remained unacknowledged.

The delay thus produced measurable procedural prejudice across both cases.

5. Truthfarian Equilibrium Analysis

Let:

1. $Cₜ = procedural conscience$,
2. $Ωₗ = institutional pressure$,
3. $Eq(S) = systemic equilibrium$.

The delay exhibits:

$C_{t} \downarrow, \quad \Omega_{l} \uparrow \quad \Rightarrow \quad Eq(S) \to 0$

1. Procedure decayed.
2. Rights were obstructed.
3. Law became inaccessible.
4. Ethics were displaced by administrative inertia.

The CNBC silence is a definable point of equilibrium collapse.

6. Conclusion — A Delayed Administrative Response with Direct Case Consequences

The County Court Business Centre’s failure to respond within a reasonable timeframe constitutes a breach of:

1. Article 6 HRA,
2. Equality Act ss.20–21, s.149,
3. CPR 1.1,
4. and common law fairness.

The delay materially harmed both M04ZA309 and M00RG751 by preventing timely remedy, obstructing procedural correction, and leaving defective judicial outcomes unchallenged.

This disclosure stands as a documented administrative breach at the level of HMCTS central handling.

7. Exhibit Index

1. Exhibit 1 — Possession Order (1 Sept 2025)
2. Exhibit 2 — Correspondence sent to CNBC (October 2025)
3. Exhibit 3 — CNBC Reply (27 Nov 2025)