Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
LTSB obtained the usual Stay Order back in January
I then wrote to the Court and asked to have the Stay Order lifted due to the behaviour of the Defendant - LTSB had continued to pile on the charges and issued an Enforcement Notice under Section 76(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 demanding payment of £900 which is a lesser amount than the amount I am claiming. I also applied to have Schedule 2 to my claim amended to include the charges added after I issued proceedings.
I have a reason for not sending a Skeleton and that is I don't think the Stay Order is up for discussion at the Court hearing. My reasoning is LTSB applied for the Stay, it was granted, I wrote to the Court and it was lifted. LTSB would have to apply for a new Stay Order (which I do not believe they have done) for it to be open for discussion. Am I right?
Second question - what grounds have I got for opposing a fresh Stay Order assuming it is up for discussion in Court on Friday?
There is all the usual stuff available on this site but should I use the following arguments too:
issue by LTSB of Enforcement Notice contrary to OFT debt collection guidelines
Re: In Court 18 April 2008 - advice needed urgently
Sorry RTWman that i can't advise. I realise that you are in court tomorrow, but if you need any urgent advice in future and your thread isn;t answered within a reasonable amount of time, then hit the red triangle and you can send a message to the moderators.
I'm midway through the tunnel, but getting closer to the light.
Re: In Court 18 April 2008 - advice needed urgently
Hi Iozzzy
What I believed had happened in my case was that ltsb had been granted a stay but that the judge lifted the stay after he read my letter telling him how naughty LTSB had been:
The Defendant may seek to rely upon a ‘waiver’ obtained from the OFT and apply to have this claim adjourned pending the outcome of another case. However, the Defendant has chosen to issue an Enforcement Notice under Section 76(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 demanding payment of £x which is a lesser amount than the amount I am claiming in this matter (a copy of the Notice is attached hereto). Should the Defendant make such an Application and in view of the Defendant’s conduct, which is contrary to both the terms and the spirit of the ‘waiver’, I would be grateful if you would lay this letter and the Notice before the Judge and respectfully request that this matter proceed immediately to trial
Whilst I was correct, LTSB's counsel then made a verbal application for a stay (did not know they could do this so was not as fully prepared as I should have been). The Court dismissed my skeleton arguement not to allow a stay (the skeleton is the one available on the Forum)- seen it all before, senior judge (District Judge) had looked at the points and refuted them.
I can post more details if you need them but that is about it.
What MIGHT have persuaded the judge was to labour the point that if the action were not stayed then LTSB would settle out of Court and thus save the Court's time, etc.
The judge did not know what had been disclosed in the OFT case (nothing is my guess but I do not know that for a fact so don't quote me), LTSB's counsel kept quiet (probably knew but kept quiet as it wouldn't help LTSB case) and I was not up to speed with OFT case. Had my guess been correct that nothing was disclosed in the OFT case then there was a good case for NOT staying my case and forcing LTSB into disclosure (and thus out-of-court settlement). With the benefit of hindsight, I should have asked the judge to order disclosure and then allow LTSB to apply for stay after full disclosure.
In Court 18 April 2008 - advice needed urgently
guidelines
Reply With Quote
