Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

callum1999

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    497

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by callum1999

  1. callum1999
    The contract that the solicitor, the solicitor's solicitor and the councils solicitor are fabricating, that one, (contract)....
  2. callum1999
    So now you are claiming i am only a third party. brilliant, it gets better.
  3. callum1999
    No privity of contract this end Dave, quite the reverse, you are not seriously suggestion the contract to represent me, was in some way linked to another organisation are you, comedy gold..
  4. callum1999
    Ford i am not issuing fresh proceedings to suit, if the other side want to play or try and play clever by denying liability, while completely abusing the DPA, maybe they should stop inflating the costs by allowing matters to reach Court, without justification.
  5. callum1999
    Yes comedy gold when a solicitor, the Council solicitor and others are claiming a contract, you for once are right, comedy gold. knock knock:lol:
  6. callum1999
    If the solicitors are failing to provide a client with information, say for argument sake, the funding/costs incurred and i have reported the solicitors to the police, surely withholding such vital imformation on which a client/member of the public feels would incriminate the solicitor would be deemed perverting the course of justice If i was a firm and i had an obligation under the criteria/s that had to be met, in providing a client with information, i would duly obliged, if i had nothing to hide, just a thought.
  7. callum1999
    Are the police still investigating, the correct notice has been giving, and i am just waiting on a document, that if as i suspect will show the solicitor has been fraudulent, he will drop a number of other individuals in the frame that would show conspiracy to defraud the public out of funding, as opposed to the my solicitor being the only perpetrator. Funny, the longer this goes on, the more i seem to discover:-D
  8. callum1999
    The Court where the claim should not have been transferred are claiming they have not received my application's, how convenient is that. I do not believe them, as these applications would involve any pending hearings and should be considered, who do i need to notify to make complaint too as there now seems to be a pattern of the Courts not receiving my applications which looks a bit suspect, if i am being honest.
  9. callum1999
    And what duties are you now plucking from mid-air are you suggestion i have not complied with? You seem to be rather defensive and keep puffing your chest out about what i should be doing, but you remain in your defiance to support the legal system and the dodgy characters associated with such regime. Are you still adamant that a retainer (contract) between client and solicitor can be achieved via smoke signals??, or would there need to be some form of funding in place to validate such an important agreement, a simple yes or no will do, thanks in advance...
  10. callum1999
    The other-sides application to strike out has yet to be considered, however my grounds for that application to be thrown where it belongs, in the bin, has fallen on deaf ears to date.
  11. callum1999
    Again, you quote what is best for the court, this time wasting the courts time, tut tut. I am not asking for a mini trial, and for the avoidance of doubt i am not disputing the matters, just those matters the other-side have and continue to ignore which would come under your "matters not in dispute" I do not need any adversarial devise to prove my claim, just the facts will do nicely:wink:
  12. callum1999
    Notice to admit facts are far from pointless, quite the reverse, any admission made by one party, not only undermines the other-sides case, it strengthen's my case. The other side know this, as do others. As for getting a judges back up, for making applications which would help them adjudge the claim, on evidence, as opposed to misrepresentation, a Judge cannot decide what evidence he or she wants to consider, it is in the interest of justice and most certainly not based on the mood or getting their back up, that is irrelevant, they are there to judge on evidence and not who is trying to provide that evidence, which would include seeking orders, period.
  13. callum1999
    The circumstances that have been relied upon in this case Ford, is because of both parties postcodes are the same, so should the assigned court, nah, it should have stayed within the High Court, not only because of the value of claim, but the complexity of the case, the claim and not to mention it being in the interest of the public for a more senior court/judge to determined.
  14. callum1999
    Yes, they have made one application, and the Courts are jumping rings to accommodate them, no surprise there. Problem both will have is all the applications that i have made, which would include having such application set-aside, have been completely ignored. Grounds in any event to appeal, according to the Court where case has been transferred they have not received these applications, yea right. Still modern technology will show otherwise, the legal system seem stuck in the 80's, but cannot seem to accept those days and such ploys are now not as straight forward as they used to be. Tick tock.
  15. callum1999
    What i am saying is that the other-side are trying to get the claim stuck out on a technicality. What they are saying is the claim should be struck out because my POC have need been properly pleaded, or in other words another lame excuse, with no real substance. I have presented my POC, the court officer, the Master and a very knowledgeably poster on this forum are all satisfied that (a) the pleadings are fine, and (b) there are no grounds to strike the claim out. In other words the Master has considered the POC, and unlike the solicitor for the other side, was not minded as that was his option to strike the claim out, so the solicitor for the other-side must be right, because he has clearly seen something that no-one else has seen, hence why he wants to strike the claim out, yea right. Everyone else must be wrong after considering and having the authority to strike the claim out if there was any substance in this feeble excuse as to defend, this would have happened by now. Who do you believe a Master QC or some two bob solicitor who by all accounts is worse than the one that represented me, some achievement:lol: that
  16. callum1999
    But add to this, that a judge could if like the other side are claiming the POC are so misdirected and incomplete strike the case out, the very fact a court officer who if like the other-side felt that the POC falls within 3.4(2) (a) or (b)would consult a judge, under rule 3.2. It would appear that the only person who feels my POC were not pleaded to suffice a strike out claim would be the solicitor representing the other-side, yea right.
  17. callum1999
    So a judge on considering a POC cannot strike a claim out under the Courts own initiative??
  18. callum1999
    Am i right to assume that if the Court staff, or the assigned judge on considering a POC can identify a breach under CPR 16.4 and has the authority and within in the interest of justice, to give notice that the Claimants POC have not been properly pleaded, and give an order that would support this, if this was the case. A simple yes or no to the above would be appreciated.
  19. callum1999
    Application to have claim struck out-set-aside, notice to admit facts, and yes i provided POC using the form N244. Steampowered made comment, that whilst not brilliant, the particulars of claim were documented when i put up on here, were ok, the otherside are just using this as an excuse.
  20. callum1999
    I have to date asked the Court to make a number of orders, but to no avail, not even an acknowledgement. The other side on the other hand, ask the case to be moved and the Court duly obliged and are allowing a strike out application on the grounds that the POC have not been correctly pleaded, which again is just plain nonsense. I feel that this case is being run to accomodate one party>
  21. callum1999
    Will continue with original proceedings, no intentions of discontinue. The facts of the claim would be different, breaching contract as opposed to negligence.
  22. callum1999
    It would appear that under The High Court and County Court Jurisdiction Order 1991, the claim should have remained within the High Court?, regardless.
  23. callum1999
    Yes and based that direction on where the two parties reside, seems rather odd. Looks like the other side are scattering to get a cheap Court order and relying the wrong court to achieve this. Not a problem, i will just issue fresh proceedings on the grounds of the solicitor breaching his contract duties and quantum the loss in order for the matter not to be dealt with by a local county court, simple enough.
  24. callum1999
    I would assume that it is not just a question of "Its done" if i am to comply with the rules, why should the other side not comply, there is no logic's in having in place, a procedure if only one party complies. I will focus on the relevant parts of the claim, however, i want the right court and judge that could deal with what is a complicated case, assigned, and not on a post-code lottery, in order to deal with the relevant parts of the claim.
  25. callum1999
    Thank you for that Ford, appreciated.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...