Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


aloysiush last won the day on July 17 2008

aloysiush had the most liked content!


31 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. I suspect, at the hearing of your application (at which no attendance by the parties), the DJ has merely ordered the payment of the application fee. X20, the hearing of DJC's application will have taken place regardless of the discontinuance. That only discontinued the claimants action and not the application. Order not yet arrived, let's see what it contains.
  2. It would appear the court has assessed your costs. There is no need to do a detailed bill for assessment. If they fail to pay - enforce (it will be 14 days - by the way). My post of the 2/9/08 above refers.
  3. X20 is correct. You have an automatic right to costs upon the filing of notice of discon, but you really do not want to go down the route of filing an inter parties bill for detailed assessment for an amount of £75. The fee for filing (if the claimant does not pay after being served with the bill) is more than £75 and you would have to attend an assessment hearing. Better to just attend the hearing listed and the judge will make an order for your costs and attendance expenses. The order will be a summary assessment of your costs and payable in 14 days from the making of the order. If they do not pay - send in the bailiffs!! The above is far more expedient than going down the detailedassessment route and a lot less work.
  4. Sorry, I have been working and missed your post. Do a letter to the sols and request payment of your court fee of £75.00. Explain if you do not receive payment before the hearing date you will attend and request an order for the £75.00 and additional expenses. If they do not pay, attend and ask for the fee and expenses for attendance. Request that the sols pay personally, if not the claimant will be ordered to pay. You will be awarded your costs-don't worry. They have done what I suspected and you should see it thru. You need to wait to see what happens with the judgment on the first action. Sit tight, theres is the next move. good luck!
  5. X20 is spot on! However, passing comment on that which has gone before and has no material effect on the matter now being ajudicated upon by the court, may only serve to aggravate the district judge. Stick to the relevant issues and forget the 'smoke and mirrors' - on this occasion.
  6. You could pay £113 off the debt and thus bring the balance to less than £750 - the bankruptcy threshold. Thats if you have the cash available? Otherwise apply to set aside, as suggested. If you have not been served personally or there has been no attempt to do so, then they are not serious and the chances of the court allowing a petition to proceed are slim (should you ignore and not turn up at any future hearing). An attempt (at least) should be made to serve personally in accordance with the Insolvency Act 1986. Of course if you make an appearance, you are providing evidence of service. Any creditor not serving personally is "playing" at it. If they are trying to save a few quid in service fees, they are hardly going to spend hundreds petitioning for bancruptcy!
  7. Do nothing. Attend the hearing and you will succeed. The proceedings are clearly defective. I sense panic (them not you)!! If they have something to say, they should put it in writing. If thay do nothing and do not attend the hearing (they will probably not), you should make sure the court awards you all your expenses for attendance.
  8. Priority One, You can ask - no problem. Wilson relates to secured lending and is not on all fours with Rankine. I never said Rankine was good law or otherwise. I referred to the fact that they lost and the reasoning behind the same. I happen to feel that the judgment was clouded by an attempt to ensure they lost and that justice prevailed in all the circumstances. Wilson is a judgment, which many on here will find helpful and the comment and consequences of s.127 and others is good law and can be relied upon in the right circumstances. Incidentally, I have not 'had a go' at PT's drafts (DOCMAN). I just don't agree with the style/tactics of some of them. It is merely a matter of style and nothing else, in real terms. I am not saying they are wrong in law. He can do it his way and I will do it mine - no problem. PT - hope you were successful with the exams! Good luck, all.
  9. DJC, I suspect they will discontinue the action and/or consent to your application. Just sit tight. Don't worry about the Pt.18 it is defective and premature, they will not respond to it. This case will work out to your advantage - of that I'm convinced.
  10. PT is correct. Do not approach the Solicitors. They will be served by the court and you have sent a copy previously.
  11. PT2537 is correct. Even if a defence had been filed they could still re-issue for the full amount. You could have (at that stage) made an application for fresh proceedings to be stayed pending payment of your costs (if any) on the basis that a NOD gives automatic right to your costs and to proceed to assessment of those costs. I appreciate what Creditcardmug is saying, but there are circumstances when payment of a small part of the debt, in full, is a result. You cannot not pay all the time. Nice thought as it is. The reason - costs - for the discontinuance is rubbish. By suing you for the full amount (if they do) will only incurr further court fees. This firm appear to be playing a numbers game (sue a 1000 and 900 will pay in some amount). Defend the case and it appears they do not have the ability to cope (brains or manpower). I assume they are 'connected' to a DCA - same addresses and all that! They are litigating by numbers. Mess up the sequence and a result could follow.
  12. Creditcardmug, Do you say ignore because you do not think anything should be paid (I can understand why) or because you do believe they can proceed on the balance later? Would you not agree that it is a basic principle that a claimant should bring the entire action, as provided for both in the CPR and the many, many authorities on the exact point. In addition to the above, the practice clearly breaches the OFT guidelines re: debt collection - multiple actions/costs/fees, to the benefit of the lawyers involved. Had the entire claim been advanced in the first instance, such a situation would not exist.The practice is oppressive, onerous, abuse and vexatious.
  13. Northampton is a flagship only in the mind of it's staff. It has been said, if you seek justice, don't bother looking in a court. Change 'justice' for 'efficient' and you are describing Northampton!!
  14. Noted. It's a good job its anon or you would have to learn how to deal with a libel action (tongue in cheek)! I understand the points you are making. I am not 'that person' and have no wish to be worshipped, but understand the sites natural susp etc. Truce??
  15. The particulars are inadequate. It should at least have the date of the agreement and date of default/notice. Full details of the assignment should be contained on the 3rd page. The demand should be served personally (an attempt should be made) and thereafter by putting it thro' your letterbox (substituted). Putting it in the post, with no personal attempt is unnaceptable. If in the post, they are unlikley to attempt to proceed to bankruptcy, but take no chances - see a local solicitor for some free advice re: setting aside. If you can show a dispute, it will be set aside. Good luck.
  • Create New...