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.
I was hoping one or more of you may be able to offer me some advice.
It's like this... I put in a claim in February 2008 which, as you might imagine, was stayed pending the result of the test case. Clearly, this reached a conclusion some months ago now.
When my claim was stayed, the court ordered that: 'Unless the Court has given directions in the meantime [it hasn't], the Defendant shall upon notice to the Claimant apply for directions within 3 months of the ultimate determination of the Commercial Court litigation.'
Now, my reading of this is that Natwest/Cobbetts should by now have applied for directions.
Given I haven't heard anything, from anyone, can someone please confirm that I'm reading this right and, furthermore, exactly what 'applying for directions' amounts too?!
Contact the Court Fred to clarify what is meant bud
Already contacted the court. Unfortunately, the person I spoke to knew less than me and was, frankly, rather less helpful than a chocolate teapot.
No matter, I have now heard from Cobbetts, shock horror, who have written to the court, making reference to the Supreme Court Case, and saying my claim has 'no prospect of success and should be struck out. In the alternative, the Defendant respectfully proposes that the Court orders the following case management directions.
IT IS ORDERED that:
The claim be stayed generally.
Either party may apply to remove the stay on application to the court. Such an application may be made by way of a letter (accompanied by the appropriate court fee). The application must state:
by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court the grounds upon which the application to remove the stay are based; and
wether, and if so, what attempts have been made to settle the claim.
If no application to remove the stay is made by 4pm on 30 November 2010, the claim shall then be struck out without further order.
I presume before the claim can be struck out, the court will write to me at which point I should point out that my claim did make reference to article 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - which, as I understand it, could yet offer us a way forward - and that, this being the case, I object to this course of action.
Of course, I appreciate that in light of the Supreme Court decision I will need to submit amended Particulars of Claim, making particular reference to article 5(1) of the UTCCR 1999 and also s.140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
What I'm less clear on is why Cobbetts mention this option and what their motivation is for doing so. Why don't they simply ask that the claim should be struck out and leave it at that? Why do they bring the possibility of a further stay into the equation and, moreover, isn't it up to the court rather than Cobbetts to dictate the terms of any such stay or is it legitimate for them to do so?
Thanks in anticipation of your help and co-operation
Fred_Funk
Hi Fred
Though I'm not an expert on this process, I think the answers are within your above posts.
Basically you will need an amended POC, thereby taking your claim in a new direction, invoking different legal principles and arguments and I would not wait for any action from the other side to initiate that.
It seems Cobbetts simply want you to make that very clear as you do not appear to have changed your plea, they will ask for a Strike Out against your original case has that has now been decided by the SC.
By asking for a Strike out (if you don't contest it or ask for grounds to amend POC) or further stay, they are giving you the opportunity, should the Court allow, for you to re-apply and re-start your claim. Maybe they suspect they won't just get the strike out or it may be seen by the Judge as a bit heavy handed - who knows.
Dependant on what Cobbetts have already pleaded prior to and subsequent to the SC ruling, you would probably want to be able to use anything they have historically said against them, wherever possible.
It may therefore be better to ask to amend your POC rather than have to re-apply later.
Hi Fred , this is the usual mish mash of half-truths and mis-directions being applied by the banks solicitors......... they don't say anything about the Supreme Court advising that a claim under Regilation 5(1) and others may be successful ...........
I think I'd be inclined to write to the court , referring to the letter ......and agree to a stay until 30 November.... (funny , other courts have come up with this date recently too .....) .Inform them that , after taking further legal advice , you intend to submit amended POC's in due course to address the recommendations of the Supreme Court and would be grateful if the court would grant this stay to enable you to do so.
Send a copy to Cobbett's and then see what the court comes back with ......
Hi Fred , this is the usual mish mash of half-truths and mis-directions being applied by the banks solicitors......... they don't say anything about the Supreme Court advising that a claim under Regilation 5(1) and others may be successful ...........
I think I'd be inclined to write to the court , referring to the letter ......and agree to a stay until 30 November.... (funny , other courts have come up with this date recently too .....) .Inform them that , after taking further legal advice , you intend to submit amended POC's in due course to address the recommendations of the Supreme Court and would be grateful if the court would grant this stay to enable you to do so.
Send a copy to Cobbett's and then see what the court comes back with ......
johnnymitch
Thanks for your input which pretty much tallies with what I thought.
A couple of things though:
(1) At this point, Cobbetts have merely copied me in on a letter they've sent to the court. That being the case, should I write to the court now requesting a further stay or should I wait for the court to write to me in response to Cobbetts' letter (I'm assuming the claim can't be struck without the court doing this)?
(2) Why do Cobbetts bring the question of a further stay into the equation? How do the benefit from this? Why don't they simply request that the claim is struck out? I'm guessing that they must think they glean some advantage from this but I'm unclear what it is.
(1) At this point, Cobbetts have merely copied me in on a letter they've sent to the court. That being the case, should I write to the court now requesting a further stay or should I wait for the court to write to me in response to Cobbetts' letter (I'm assuming the claim can't be struck without the court doing this)?
(2) Why do Cobbetts bring the question of a further stay into the equation? How do the benefit from this? Why don't they simply request that the claim is struck out? I'm guessing that they must think they glean some advantage from this but I'm unclear what it is.
1. I'd say go ahead and write to the court anyway , just in case a 'strikeout ' sneaks through accidentally ... that way the court will know you're aware of the application and it may save them time by going straight to a letter of agreement to the stay ........
2. My thoughts on this is that it may be a legal requirement, or jst to make Cobbett's look reasonable instead of the 'Big Bad Wolf' approach for 'a Strikeout and nothing else will do .... '
My claim that was stayed has been lifted wuth Cahoot, I have to get all my paperwork to them by 26th July.
Do I now need to change things, can I change things. I dont want this to fall apart as it will be going on the original argument that was being used in 2008...
Do I now need to change things, can I change things.
Of course you do, this is the whole point. If your argument has not changed and you are still using the old bank charges POC then you can expect to lose as the SC has ruled against it. I must ask where you've been in the last ten months when all this was being thrashed out.
I dont want this to fall apart as it will be going on the original argment that was being used in 2008...
It most certainly will if you don't make changes to your pleas. Look into these threads in detail and you will come away with much clarity on how you ought to position yourself. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...e-amended.html
by BTM : I must ask where you've been in the last ten months when all this was being thrashed out.
I'd say that's none of your business BTM .... apart from being downright rude .... Bob came on here to ask for help,,,, which I know you can supply in abundance.... without the superior sounding "I know and you don't attitude"
Ok I am going to get it printed off. Now the court has said I need to send copies of all paperwork to the defendant (Cahoot) by 26th of July.
I was going to send in the spreadsheet I sent 2 years ago, but updated with the more recent charges that have gone on. Do I also send a copy of the post test case amendment aswell as to the court?
I have read and printed off the form. There is a new problem and it asks for the first and last date you are claiming from, not a problem, but it also asks the amount, I can not confirm this as Cahoot have deactivated my online account, so can not see the charges from Jan 2009. I have called them and they are not prepared to tell me over the phone, they have told me I will have to write a letter requesting, I suppose like a SAR.
I have to get this off to the court asap as the hearing date is 9th August and all paperwork is to be sent to the court and defendant by 26th July. There is no way they will get back to me with the remaining charges by then.
Therefore what should I put for the amount, I don’t want to guess.
If they won't send you the info you need in time for the court appearance , you should ask the court to change the date to enable you to form a full and proper case....
You are missing information which they are required to provide .... they cannot withhold it , but they'll probably play silly beggars and treat it as a SAR ..i.e. 40 days to reply ...... therefore you should write to the court office and explain that you need time to evaluate the info which the bank have not yet provided.......
Ok, I will contact the court. I have all the amounts up to Jan 09, and as I said they have been still charging the account monthly, but want to get all the charges on the claim. I will write a letter this afternoon.
I would be grateful if someone here could me some guidlines etc regarding a claim from Bryan Carter Solicitors on behalf of the Lowell Financial group.It involves a a build up of late payment charges charged at £22 per late payment. The originator was Clydesdale/Barclaycard loans for supplying a loan to purchase a car.At the end of the term of payments,charges of £303 were outstanding which related to a build up of late payments. A refund of the late payment charges were requested and the originators sent a statement of payments and charges. Nothing developed from there except that the loan company put the matter into the hands of debt collectors. All along the way, the collectors changed hands several times and this latest claim has arrived via Northampton Court with a total amount of £730. Any suggestions please.
You've left this a bit late I'm afraid if it's got to court .... but you could try the DCA with a reduced Full & Final Offer (somewhere about 1/3 to 1/2) and see if they accept ..... they may prefer to get something , rather than have to go to court for it .......
STAYED CLAIM: What happens next?!
/Cobbetts should by now have applied for directions.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by srfrench
Are you kidding Bob?
