Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aloysiush

  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.
  16. Pay the claim and refuse the balance. If they sue for the balance, file a defence claiming estoppel and abuse of process. Henderson v Henderson has been mentioned - the leading case, but there are many since then, which support the above. This could be a cheap way out, if you can afford to pay the small claim. Even if you not pay and they get judgment, they cannot proceed for the balance. If they do - as above!
  17. Priority One, You have touched no nerve! I have not noticed you 'pulling me up'. If you have - good. I do not pretend to have all the answers - just good solid understanding of the law and CPR. Point scoring is a waste of time and achieves nothing. I apologise if I do not appear to be suffering and/or have suffered in the past. FYI - I have lost my home in the past due to debt, all of which was self inflicted. I am and will not be a victim. When one gets rid of that attitude, they can begin again. I will ensure That those I have helped will be dealt to the end of their cases, but I will post no further on fresh matters and leave you to dish out that which is required.
  18. Priority One, I have no interest in previous claims or your sarcastic response to my mail. You do not have to read my mail! I do not expect to ever post 4,000+ as you have done. I'm confident, I'm not that interesting. Having read this site, I am amazed at the paranoid postings and that which is so blatantly wrong (e.g. suggestions solicitors are DCA or even debt owners etc etc etc all adding to the hysteria) People are being advised to send letters to claimants and courts, which they do not understand, referring to rules and precedents which they have not read and have been wrongly applied, in any event. I have people writing to me in business, who will not sign their letters to a firm of solicitors, because they have read on here, that the signature may be scanned and pasted onto an agreement or some other document. Indeed I have seen one poor bugger try and explain that to a judge. Yes, he had also used all the letters copied from this site and he was crucified at hearing. He was taken thro' each one and asked to explain himself. The end result is that he paid £5K in costs, which was addded to his debt. That is how I became aware of this site. If you want my help, you can have it with pleasure, if not - so what! But, do not try and plant the seed of doubt in others who do. Nothing I can do here can gain me a monetary advantage and I'm interested in no other.
  19. Dont't worry. You will need to beef up the defence/part 20 claim, when youi get the docs to allow you to do so. The docs will be received at disclosure/inspection - latest. You will want all statements and the insurance policy with conditions etc. You may find a few penalty charges to include. Good Luck.
  20. Fine. Remove 'or at all' If they are sharpish they will pick up on the admission of at least some of the debt. That chance you will have to take!
  21. Mmm.. This sounds like a service contract. Nothing to do with credit agreement and certainly not CCA 1974. You will need to attend and rely upon defective/no service of the court docs. However if they served at last known address (probably the business address you describe) it is good service (CPR Pt.6). You may have a DJ who gives you a break! It does not sound as though you have a defence, in any event. You admit you owe, its a question of how much? Perhaps you should negotiate a settlement, conditional upon the judgment being set aside - however, if I were acting for the claimant, I would not entertain you. Sorry this do not really provide you with a solution. It may be worth spending the travel cost on a solicitor instead. Ypou have some difficult decisions to make. Good luck.
  22. PT, Read the order again - no costs order on Amex case = 40K summary assessed and 2 cases for detailed assessment. It doesn't say detailed, but that is what it was. The order is badly worded. Priority, I don't have a thread, because I do not need help, but people here do! I feel its about time I gave it away, rather than sell it. I will not always be available as business takes me away, but when I can, I will help with reasoned and meaningful advice. I don't always fully explain myself - a fault, but if people take the time to consider that which I post, they will get on track and fast. I have just explained to PT, my background. Pompey, File it now - why wait?
  23. Sorry, the orders for costs totalled £40,000 with others to be assessed. They will probably end up paying an amount exceeding £80,000. Suffice to say, this is what happens when you get out of your comfort zone and give lawyers the excuse to make work - as do the CPR and Pt.18 letters. They used arguments akin to those mentioned on this site - I know.
  24. Here is the defence: Defence 1. The particulars of claim are vague and do not provide sufficient detail to enable the defendant to plead effectivley or at all. By way of example the claimant has failed to confirm the date of agreement upon which the cause of action is based. 2. Prior to the issue of the action the claimant was requested to disclose documents relating to the alleged debt and/or agreement. The claimant failed and/or refused so to do. 3. The documents described above were the subject of a request pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998 and/or the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. In all the circumstances the defendant denies being indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all. Part 20 Claim 5. The defendant/Part 20 claimant intends to claim sums paid to the claimant /Part 20 defendant in relation to a Payment Protection Insurance policy, sold by the claimant/Part 20 defendant to the defendant/Part 20 claimantwithout qualification or appropriate advice as required by the Financial Services Authority et al. The claimant/Part 20 defendant acted as agent/broker on behalf of the insurance company issuing the policy to the detriment of the defendant/Part 20 claimant. 6.The defendant/Part 20 claimant refers to paragraphs 2 and 3 above, As a consequence of the claimants/Part 20 defendants failure and/or refusal to provide documents, the defendant/Part 20 claimant is unable to plead the Part 20 claim with particularity. And the defendant/Part 20 claimant claims:- i) An order requiring the claimant/Part 20 defendant to disclose statements of account covering the entire period of the alleged agreement and a copy of the alleged agreement. ii) Damages limited to £5,000.00 iii) Interest pursuant to Section 64 of the County Courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum until judgment or further order or such other sum as the court thinks fit. Dated this day of 2008 Statement of Truth I confirm the contents of this defence/Part 20 claim are true. ..................................................... defendant/part 20 claimant To the court And to the claimant/part 20 defendant Only use the red piece if you made a CCA request. Hope this helps. It is good enough to get you to disclosure.
  25. If you do not turn up, the chances are your application will be dismissed and they then proceed to issue a bankruptcy petition. If you cannot make it, employ a solicitor to attend. He can prepare a statement to be disclosed prior to the hearing as to why the demand should be set aside. All you have to show is that the debt is in dispute (and the dispute is genuine). Demands should only be served when the debt is undisputed. Iam sure you can show it is disputed. A failure to respond to a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request is not a dispute per se, but a failure to provide evidence of debt is. Please post the 'particulars' section of the demand and I will tell you whats wrong with it, if anything. Do not allow the hearing to proceed without you or your representative being present - under any circumstances. Bankruptcy is serious - all your debts fall due to be paid at once and your home will be at risk! By the way, if you succeed in setting aside, they pay your costs!!
  • Create New...