Everything that you have had to pay out for comes under your disbursements, your time to and from Court is also chargeable together with your time researching, preparing etc etc and yes, send it to Alpins (or whoever was quoted on the N1 for service) You are entitled to your costs by way of CPR, at this stage the case was not allocated therefore SCT costs do not apply. The slight 'downer' is that it has not gone away - with permission, they could issue a new N1 and start again BUT keep all your paperwork for this claim as you would use that to object to them obtaining permission to have another go. Saying that, the Court may well ignore the discontinuance and throw the claim out which would be even better for you (but I doubt it )

Firstly congrats - and let this be an example (together with Gazbo's thread) as to one method of dealing with these claims IMHO, as the costs were submitted to Court only and your wasted costs will be submitted to the Claimant only - I would start again with a proper costs breakdown. Keep it reasonable and you will be fine. Should the other side refuse them then again IMHO the Court will hammer them as they have clearly just been wasting the Court's time. By reasonableI would follow NGEddie's lead, of course substituting your actual hours spent ......

That is not a letter it is a 'General Form of Judgment or Order' as per the heading You have got what you asked for from the Court from your N244, if you hear nothing by 4pm on the 18th write to the Court requesting that they strike out the claim. They may say you need to make another application if so just submit another N244 for a Strike Out together with full costs. It is slightly unfortunate that your application crossed with their own Order re the AQs but then we were not aware they were already overdue.... But you will either have a proper claim to defend by the 18th or you can get rid of it.

Ah, this 'letter' may well actually be an Order following the DJ looking at your app as that 'letter' is actually exactly what you asked for i.e. POC as well (which I missed first time I read it. Well, as they didn't send in the AQ I would be surprised if they now send in a fully particularised POC If they do, then the AQ you have sent in will be ignored anyway and you can send in a new one. Have you seen this 'letter' does it start 'Upon read the Defendant's application ...'

They had treated LL very badly and she complained very loudly and kept on complaining until she got results. Complaining and keeping records is useful - not only for further complaints, but if it ever goes to Court it is useful info to have.

it would have been changed for the reasons I gave earlier. I would be ringing the Court on Monday to find out exactly what has happened to you application - it should have been heard by now with an Order one way or the other. You had the letter re costs, which you have answered ...

I agree, it would seem that they are now actually abiding by the Code of Conduct when dealing with hardship cases ....... For those watching that line should explain the contents, or at least the result. Moving on, the contents do form an agreement of sorts and should anything go wrong from this point forward, could be used effectively by you to show the type of relationship that has existed.

My guess, is that, having read your AQ they then wrote to the Court with a lame excuse asking for more time. I would be writing a letter to the Court Manager asking what has happened to your application.

any news?

Yep, I would ring them just to keep on top of things. If nothing seems to be happening write to the Court Manager. As the Order specified that the claim would be struck out without further order then it is just a matter of the papers going before the DJ and then DJ striking out the case. No application needed, DJ has already decided the consequences. Start sorting your costs out, NGEddie has a thread that went into costs claiming very thoroughly. £9.25 per hour spent on research and dealing with the claim - this is capped to 2/3rds of what it would have cost had you been represented. There is nothing stopping you ringing a couple of local sols and asking how much it would cost to take the claim, defend and apply for SO (I'm guessing £2k-£3k) Then you also add you disbursements i.e. out of pocket expenses everything from paper, stamps and phone calls through to application cost etc http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?237396-N150-assistance-needed...please-**WON** NGEddie's thread - costs start about 2/3rds through I think

It's a gamble they can afford to take, but you can't I'm afraid. You have to remember that this account is, to them, just a drop in the ocean, however to you it has rather more significance. This means that you just have to tow-the-line more carefully As I said, there is still your application to be heard, and if they do submit an AQ (and their payment) then it will be very interesting to see their argument as it will give you a heads up for the application hearing. My thoughts ..... they will not want to lay out more cash and will just let the case be struck out and hope that you don't bother to claim your costs .....

Well, what *should* happen is that the papers will be put before the DJ again as per their Order and the DJ will then strike the claim out. You then put your costs together and submit them to the other side for approval - if they do not approve then you negotiate a little and if not they go before the Court and they will get hammered. (they *might* submit it late (having read yours) with some pathetic excuse - in which case the Court will, most likely, let them get away with it - that's just the way it is .... but then there is still your app in the pipeline ....)

tick, tock, tick, tock .......

If it was me, I would find out what that payment was - either by a SAR or Part 18 request then depending on the result, if SB apply for a Strike Out as an 'abuse of process' but there is nothing stopping you making an application to Strike Out the claim (if their POC is very weak and you have a strong defence) Even if your defence was not 'strong' but you now have strong evidence you could present that in a WS to support your app.

Sorry I wasn't around this weekend unavoidable I'm afraid Still thanks to Martin you have your AQ now so let's see how this is going to progress.

That is a seriously good Order - well done to you AND to the DJ

I think in this situation I would be looking to take them to Court The relationship is clearly unfair and against many guidelines. I would construct an argument for an unfair relationship with a request for an Order to remove all excessive interest and charges and include an S129 application for a Time Order for repayment as per your proposed schedule. If successful then, as long as you keep to it - that's the end of it.

No, your original letter would become privileged however yu could disclose it as long as it does not compromise any privileged communication from the other side. WP/privilege is there to 'protect' you in that case, in other words if you admitted the debt and offered to pay in a WP and then went to trial denying the debt the other side couldn't use the admission against you. BUT if you wanted to show you had been reasonable, then yes, no reason why you can't disclose your letter (even if headed WP ..)

Genuine WP correspondence is not admissible at any time (there are few exceptions and these are covered by case law) hence the relatively recent innovation of 'Without Prejudice Save as to Costs' which is admissible after Judgement. The idea of this is to show whether one party has acted 'unfairly' by not accepting a 'reasonable' offer prior to trial. The WPSATC correspondence can then be used to show the behaviour and if one party was found to be unreasonable then the Courts have powers to 'punish' that party IF the correspondence is not seeking a genuine settlement, then it is admissible at any time as just labelling it WP does not automatically make a document privileged.

Can I suggest starting a repayment plan NOW - it puts them on the back foot as the 'this debtor is avoiding repayment' argument dies Just start sending them money OR get in contact with CCCS and/or PayPlan and get them to deal with MBNA (and any others with CCAs) you don't need to tell CCCS/PayPlan about the any you are dealing with separately.

could you re-post your AQ answers. Personally I would go for fast-track as a) you have a very good case b) the level of care taken over the claim is higher c) more CPR operates at fast track which will work to your advantage (CPR 31 for instance) d) more costs when you win There is the risk that if you lose you could be hit by a larger costs claim and that is what you have to establish i.e. the actual risk of losing

Don't panic over the AQ, yes, hand it in by 4pm Monday, BUT on Monday morning ring to see if there is any movement on your application being heard as that would actually halt the AQs anyway. How much is the claim for as that may change the track request wording in the AQ

Ok, without seeing the orders or you application(s) ..... You need to concentrate on 1) 2nd loan defaulted (in error) and terminated (which they can do) but as not terminated within the Law (S98 CCA) they have and will never have any right to repayment of the loan S98 was not complied with therefore they are stuffed. 2) Illegible agreement, they are still in default of the S77 request and therefore unable to enforce 3) IF any of the orders were for legible copies etc then they are clearly in breach of those (and you should have applied for the case to be struck out if that was/is so) Without a legible agreement 4) terminated agreement as above. This account WAS in default and therefore S87 applies. The CCA states they must serve (not you must receive) a Default Notice. They are relying on the integrity their automated systems to show that they served a DN A DN has to comply with the regulations as per S88. Again they are relying on their automated systems to correctly construct a compliant DN They are not able to show the dates, the sums or, in fact any other information that is required to appear on the DN . The template provided is itself not a clear representation of a DN They are relying completely on an automated system which, as admitted must be inherently flawed as to have defaulted an terminated the other account in error. I think these are you main points - again really difficult without all the info ... Good luck tomorrow Remember they must show that your defence has no merit, when clearly it does The offer to discontinue was sent Without Prejudice and therefore should not be brought up when dealing with that part of the claim If they do discontinue that part then they are liable to pay your costs in that part

If they have breached the UKCA guidelines then complain to them anyway I would complain everywhere - what's the worst you can be told - 'wait for their process to end first' ok, so what .... It might not get you anywhere but it makes you feel better It also builds up a history and for any future litigation (should it come to that) that history could be useful ....

Oooops did see Shadow beat me to this one