Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Personal Injury Help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2693 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hey folks, need some advice.

 

Hubby had a motorcycle accident last November.

Was hospitalised and had surgery. 5 months off work with only SSP.

We got through that.

 

We had a witness and the police prosecuted the driver for driving without due care and attention.

 

That went to court in June last year.

Hubby had 12m review with surgeon yesterday and has to have further surgery in 3 weeks, meaning more time off work.

 

Our solicitor is telling us that the other parties insures have not responded to their push for admission of liability.

 

Court proceedings were allegedly served in September this year as they hadn't admitted or denied liability and we still have no response.

 

We have asked about an interim payment, but have had nothing

 

. We have been told we cannot get one unless the other side admit liability.

We cannot afford for him to have further time off work as he only gets SSP!

 

Is this right? Surely if the driver has been prosecuted it's pretty cut and dried and the driver's insurance company should have at least responded??

 

Thanks:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the insurers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With a successful prosecution for driving without due care & attention, your tack to take is that (bearing in mind the Civil Evidence Act), liability should not be an issue, only quantum of damages (if they are claiming, for example, that there has been contributory negligence).

 

Assuming that that this is a multi-track case (interim payments won't happen in the Small Claims track, and are rare in the fast track), your insurers / solicitors should be putting this to the defendant's solicitors, asking for an interim payment, noting that if they don't offer an interim payment, you'll be asking the court to order one under CPR 25(7)(1)

 

Your solicitors will likely be looking at Practice Direction 25B, in particular Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With a successful prosecution for driving without due care & attention, your tack to take is that (bearing in mind the Civil Evidence Act), liability should not be an issue, only quantum of damages (if they are claiming, for example, that there has been contributory negligence).

 

Assuming that that this is a multi-track case (interim payments won't happen in the Small Claims track, and are rare in the fast track), your insurers / solicitors should be putting this to the defendant's solicitors, asking for an interim payment, noting that if they don't offer an interim payment, you'll be asking the court to order one under CPR 25(7)(1)

 

Your solicitors will likely be looking at Practice Direction 25B, in particular Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2.

 

Thank you for your response. The problem is Admiral are not even responding at all. Our solicitor said they issued court proceedings in September and still have not heard anything from them. They haven't said anything at all. It's like they are completely ignoring it and hoping it will go away!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response. The problem is Admiral are not even responding at all. Our solicitor said they issued court proceedings in September and still have not heard anything from them. They haven't said anything at all. It's like they are completely ignoring it and hoping it will go away!

 

Admiral not responding 'doesn't matter', in so far as if they haven't responded to the request (or anything else, even!), your solicitors make the application, (with a 'return date' of at least 14 days....).

Admiral can then respond or not, but that won't stop the court making an order for an interim payment. That order would be enforceable (and from the sum likely to be involved) enforceable as a judgment order by HCEO's if Admiral were unwise enough to continue to ignore the process......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, an approach (that would avoiding appearing to be nagging) would be to ask them

Is there:

A) Any reason to delay making an application for an interim payment, (given that finances are now getting difficult), and

B) Anything more they would need from you before making such an application?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...