Hi Dondada Thank you for that. My apologies for not responding sooner but I've finally got a full time job and am trying to balance work with the case load. I made them an offer which they rejected out of hand. On a positive note, they described the Respondent as extremely confident. That made me laugh because we've been in front of the Judge before and if they had a killer defence, it would have been a great time to present it. Equally, they could have told me. I would definitely put a halt to proceedings if they could show any significant strength. Their response was just mind games and poorly done at that. He's tried to get my goat on several occasions but mostly I found it risible. Truthfully, I'm either very confident or very despondent when it comes to the case. At work I can be considered a bit phlegmatic but I enjoy giving talks, so as a person, I expect to come across as confident. My biggest weakness is getting chatty (as you might tell from the length of my posts). I was aware of what you're calling rapport between a lawyer and judge. I'm hoping to show common sense and that their Lawyer is simply parroting the Respondent's position and attempting to translate that into a case. In particular from their side of the bundle and their witness statements, I think I can show that these have no bearing on the case and is simply deflection i.e. no matter the level of their Lawyer's professionalism, it's the client at fault. That last is my point two of the three legs a statutory dismissal case rest on: that I chose to leave at an appropriate moment based on their prior actions and their recent decisions. So, you're right, I am pretty confident. I have two main tactics that I expect to play a lot; shutting up and pointing out strawmen. My feeling is though, that it's like a football match; it's all on the day! Thanks again for your kind words and advice. James555

Thank you, Dondada. A thoughtful essay. Much appreciated. I have wondered about a settlement agreement. My concern was that they had not produced a good argument in their ET3, their bundle or their witness statements to show that my primary case was poor. This read to me that their defence was not going to be evidence based and was not going to rely on the law. My case rests on a point of law. Generally, as I understand it, this means they do a lot of pounding on tables (as they say). This makes me suspect that their case isn't very strong. I believe they're going to rely on claiming that they were wonderful and I was not which unfortunately (even if it were true) completely misses the point of the case. I appreciate you're not a legal advisor but you offered me some good cold advice. Thanks. I know it weakens their case if the directors who've resigned don't turn up. I'm not relying on that. I'll also ask about the availability of their witnesses. The new Directors are part of a much larger company and they may take a different view to the previous directors. I have prepared questions for all of the witnesses already. I've yet to package them. I've also prepared for the questions I think I will be asked as their solicitor tells me that he expects to have me on the stand for three hours. As regards putting my case, I have been using most of my witness statement (which has a significant number of points to use). I've asked a friend who I consider to be intelligent and commercially knowledgeable to review it and I'm prepared for something of a re-write. It is about 20,000 words packed down as I don't want to be verbose or drift off topic. I'm mindful that I will be reading it out and this offers opportunities too. I like your idea of making an offer. I had always presumed that the first to make an offer is showing a weakness. Nevertheless, I think I'll do as you say. I don't believe I'm hurt if they reject it. Thanks again, Dondada Kind regards James555

Sangie Thank you. I don't believe I need any further advice from you. I would quickly point out that the Respondents are the Company and not the Directors. If I can figure out a way to close this thread, I shall. James555

Ok, thanks, Sangie. I knew the first question was just a matter of opinion. I was hoping to gain a consensus. Its not important. I presumed that one would realise that Peninsula are acting on behalf of the Respondents. The particulars of the case wouldn't have a bearing on a generalised question. I'm not looking for right or wrong answers. I'm looking for examples of possible outcomes, thus allowing me to prepare for these contingencies. As to my second question, whilst it is somewhat philosophical in nature, bears strongly on the Respondent's ability to respond. I did feel that if the previous directors felt the sale meant they were disinclined to bear testimony, that it changed the shape of the case. For example, whilst the Judge can read their written statement, they will not be responding to any evidence I might produce. This will likely damage the Respondent's case. Somebody might have experience of this and give me a feel as to how a judge is likely to respond. Will the Judge, for example, rule out any evidence relating to the previous directors? Should I contact Peninsula with a view to a settlement offer? etc Equally, it may be that the new owners have a disclaimer in the sale agreement requiring the previous directors to act. I was hoping others here might have some experience or knowledge about these things and could direct my thoughts as to further preparation. I suspect writing to Peninsula to enquire about the status of the directors as witnesses would be prudent. Thanks again for your time, Sangie James555

My tribunal is being held over four days at the beginning of July. I have just discovered that the owners (who were franchisees) have sold their company to the franchise. They were bringing five witnesses including both of the original directors. My questions are, can I expect to see the original directors turn up as witnesses? I know there's no requirement on their part to do so and any response you give will just be opinion. My other question is I have had little contact with Peninsula about this case. We've exchanged bundles and witness statements. They went through their usual request to strike out theatre, unsuccessfully. Are there any questions I should consider asking them? Thanks in advance Czinczar

Thanks, I will. Really appreciate you taking the time.

Hi Uncle Thanks for the response. I suspect that your link is out of date as there has been a ruling that overpaid housing benefit cannot be reclaimed if the reason for the overpayment was not related to the claimant (in 2009). On that basis, I was hoping I would be allowed to challenge the ruling. I was also under the impression that according to the Human Rights Act, I was entitled to my 'day in court'. Housing Benefits knew were I lived as the court had been writing to me there for some time as well as sending my council tax bills to that address. I presumed on that basis that I would be served papers and able to present a defence. Even though it was only a moral debt, I actually made payment some weeks before which my local council decided to interpret as an overpayment of council tax (regardless of any reference on the bank payment). Frankly, I feel as if I've simply been caught up in SNAFU at a clerical level but I need to correct it. So, I presume that I need to find a way to challenge teh ruling and have a judge make a ruling after hearing my defence. If you can offer any advice on this, I'd very much appreciate it. TIA James

Hi My local court wrote to me to ask me to pick up documents. I presumed that it related to outstanding housing benefit (which I had paid regardless of sec 71 of SSAA). The papers turned out to be judgement. Now I have received a request for details of my pay. I would have defended this as per the decision in October 2009 as it was not my mistake that generated the overpayment and I was not aware that they had done so until they wrote to tell me about it. How can I get the decision overturned? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please don't use acronyms though as I have no familiarity with any of this.