Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About fuzzel

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi dx, I just received this yesterday actually, I forgot to post it last night.... Good morning ********, I am assisting ****************** with this case. Please find attached decision form from the Court granting decree of absolvitor on a no expenses basis. I trust that this concludes matters. Kind regards There was an issue with the first interlocutor in that it only granted dismissal, so Shoosmiths had to recall the decree and get a new one. Thanks again for all your help. Obviously, I'm delighted with the outcome but I've learned a lot aswell.
  2. I had thought expenses were limited to £300 based on posts ( I think) in the thread but it seems it's limited to 10% of the amount sued for/awarded in claims above £3000 from what I'm reading. Anyway I've agreed to £300 on the basis that decree will be for no expenses and have confirmed that to the court, and on the basis that Cabot send a cheque for £300 within 21 days. They didn't want a decree for expenses against them, hence agreeing to payment out with the court process.
  3. Cabot/Shoosmiths have agreed to Absolvitor with expenses in my favour. Thanks so much for all your help with it guys, and especially dx. I really appreciate everything you guys are doing on the site to help people. I'll donate half the expenses to CAG as a thank you and to reflect all the work that dx has put into helping me with the case. Cheers
  4. Sadly it is. Hopefully we'll be less financialised after the next global financial crisis. Next year if not before is my bet.
  5. Yeah its so sad that people don't end up on sites like this where they can realise that and not be exploited. Don't get me wrong, i messed up and got myself into a lot of debt when i was younger and I'm not saying I'm not accountable. But even with defaults i paid back way more than i ever borrowed and let's not forget that under the current fiat-based monetary system, the money banks lend is created out of thin air and borrowed into existence at zero cost to them anyway! Even if you think that's fair, which i don't, it certainly can't be fair for these parasites to come along decades later and pretend to own a debt that you now owe to them, scaring people into making payments. If the people on this site were to collectively aporoach the FSA, the press and their politicians with what's really going on in this industry, there would be even more outcry and investigation than we have seen to date, particular in relation to certain claimants like cabot abusing the legal system and the low max expenses of the simple procedure with spurious claims they know they can't substantiate, or don't even bother to check they can substantiate It's a disgrace. cost to the tax payer of processing these eventually-abandoned claims must be huge
  6. HI dx, The claimant has lodged a motion to abandon the action could I ask you to delete post 157 or at least remove the line that mentions the name of the solicitor at Shoosmiths. I meant to remove the name of the solicitor in the email I posted up from Shoos but having spoken to the solicitor today he asked me to remove it from this website on the basis that it's defamatory because I referred to him as "a muppet". I'm not worried about that because i don't think it is defamatory since the comment would have to be false for that to apply. One could easily argue that since the action has been raised spuriously and before any evidence of a legal basis for claim has even been found (and eventually could not be found) and then subsequently abandoned the day before a proof, my comments have some merit. Nonetheless, it wasn't my intention to attack anyone personally. I was talking to the solicitor on the recommendation of the sheriff clerk. I told them I wanted absolvitor with expenses and not a dismissal and they said that they'd look into what options I have procedurally and get back to me, but meantime I should contact shoosmiths and explain my position. I did that and explained that given the hoops I have required to jump through in this case to try and get to the bottom of what the claim is about, not least because the principal agent refused to attend court even when instructed by the sheriff, that I wanted absolvitor to be sure the matter could not be rehashed and brought again. I explained that I was considering approaching the FSA on the basis that they are in breach of current guidelines which advise companies not to bring cases which they know are timebarred, as appears to be the case here, (and also on the basis that they are raising spurious cases on a speculative basis). He is taking his clients instructions and will get back to me on Monday as he couldn't reach them today and is out of the office on Monday. He advised there appears to have been a consolidated loan for which the client has been unable to obtain the required documentation, hence the abandonment. Obviously that's something they should have clarified before raising an action and certainly before now. In the meantime, the proof won't go ahead and the claimant's solicitor has advised the court to hold off on delaying with their abandonment motion until he has taken instructions on abandonment with expenses of £300 in my favour. The court advised that if the claimant is not agreeable to that I can lodge an incidental motion to have a hearing on the case in order to argue for absolvitor. I need to wait until Monday to confirm whether that will be necessary. If they decide to raise any further actions in relation to any matter, regardless of the merits, then it would be my intention to involve the FSA and any other relevant bodies to look closely at this claimant, these solicitors and their practices, which amount to nothing more than abuse of legal process, safe in the knowledge that expenses are minimal at £300 in even a case abandoned at the 11th hour. There is now way I am going through this again without taking them to task on their practices to the fullest extent and their behaviour in this case and others on this site would support that.
  7. OK will do. I'll just be happy to get absolvitor but expenses would be a bonus. I'll give half of whatever I get to CAG.
  8. NO probs, I really appreciate the help and didn't mean for my post above to sound ungrateful in anyway. Ok I will do. I'm self employed so I'm taking time off to attend but only from myself rather than an employer. It's still lost time of course. I'll be sure to write it all down. The LLoyds calls alone covered 5 hours with time spent on hold lol, though I won't mention those unless i need to when questioned.
  9. Yeah that was my thinking, I don't want to speak to them, but thought I had best check with you just in case. I mean the rules try to promote and encourage negotiation between the parties, so i just wanted to check I wasn't being obstructive in a way that would annoy the sheriff by not answering calls and emails. Deep down though I know that this muppet McGladrigan is probably only now looking at this case properly for the first time since he raised the case, having wasted a lot of my time (and more importantly yours) with everything that has gone on up until this point. So i'm delighted that you're saying I can ignore him as I suspect he might be calling to try and cancel/postpone the proof, either to give himself more time or to withdraw the case as unless we're completely missing the point, he's now realising that he has a crap case and a sheriff that might tear strips off him for not complying with his orders to appear and produce a valid CCA. And yes I must admit to having a habit of overthinking and overcomplicating things so I apologise for that!
  10. I'm not sure where you're getting that from DX. I've read all the links I could find that were relevant and all the ones that you have linked to me. I have 19 saved chrome tabs with everything from relevant cases to the SP rules, which I've read several times now. I've had those since the start and added as I went along, so the only time I'm logging in is to see posts on the thread. I can only think that's why it appears I haven't read the things you're referring to. I had also read not to make contact with DCAs or their dogs, but obviously I have to do that to intimate parts of the procedure like amendment etc and doing it by letter or email makes no difference as you're still communicating with them to intimate. I did both so they couldn't say they didn't receive anything and postpone things any further. I'm sorry if you feel that you've nurse-maided me but I assure you I've spent hours reading the relevant materials, several times.
  • Create New...