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
    But in evidence they have not raised this as the reason. In evidence they have claimed costs as the reason why they were not prepared to provide, now that leaves them a bit open, they were and in their opinion, minded to provide but relied on costs as the reason, quite comical when you consider that they sent a barrister from the other end of the country to make their application,odd that.
  2. callum1999
    So in theory, there is not one strand of evidence that they have in their possession that proves what they are alleging, is remotely true. Add to that the emails sympathising with your parents that they have not "personally" installed the boiler and associated pipework, they are trying it on, but there own evidence will show this. You state your parents have suffered from stress and all the inconvenience from this, i am not surprised, this firm and like a lot of people are purely motivated by greed and money, and they are good at targeting the most vulnerable. Get your parents, if they have not already done so, to see their doctor and document the problems this is causing to their health, very important.
  3. callum1999
    So let me get this right, if someone denies liability, CPR32.18 , which COULD SHOW they are liable, is not enforceable. So at what stage of proceedings would CPR 32.18 be enforceable?, trial>
  4. callum1999
    As there has been some applications that the court have not received, prior notification that permission to appeal is now being sought will be sent, to remove any doubts and to ensure the application is considered, better to be safe, than sorry.
  5. callum1999
    Am i correct in thinking a request for the transcriptneeds to be completed on form EX107? What should i have put in form N244?
  6. callum1999
    If a party or a Court refuses to comply or order that a notice to admit facts is giving/provided, and they are relevant to say, a strike out application,, what are the rules on the non compliance of CPR32.18. If there is no compulsory obligation as to comply with this rule, despite having a claim struck out, which more unlikely, than likely if those facts were considered, could someone explain why the otherside and the courts were not obliged to provide/order this evidence.
  7. callum1999
    And on form N244, with remission application.
  8. callum1999
    Have sent form N161 Going to apply for transcript, next couple of days.
  9. callum1999
    There were legitimate grounds to strike out the defence, but if the other-side and the Courts want to conceal that evidence needed to rely upon, there will never be legitimate grounds to appeal, that is not my thought.
  10. callum1999
    Yes all applications were completed on N244, and subsequent fee remission application with supportive documentation each time. The directions all my proposed directions were overlooked, but the other sides considered, no opportunity to oppose or reason/s giving why one parties application took precedent over the other. Made application to the HC and CC that the other-side to comply with CPR31.18, as those facts should have been considered not only at trial, but in any application, to strike out a claim. Clearly i have been denied the most basic of orders as to prove my case, and in the event of any strike out application that the other-side were perfectly entitled to do, entitled, a bit one sided.
  11. callum1999
    I have giving the Court notice of my appeal. I know that there are limitations, i am just waiting to secure all the evidence that will show it was not in the interest of justice for the application to proceed.
  12. callum1999
    No clock ticking here, quite the reverse. Nor am i facing a 9k for dodgy costs awarded by a dodgy judge in a dodgy court, which incidental, the chambers were filthy and with half the ceiling missing..
  13. callum1999
    If the court was minded and only showed a predominant motivation to consider one parties application but denies the other party those seem legal rights, this is an abuse of process. No ifs, buts or maybe's, there lies the bare facts. Had the other-side and had the Court ordered that they complied with the Notice to Admit Facts and based on the 42 admissions that i was entitled to rely upon, any application to strike out and based on the facts would have been laughed out of court. They and the judge who jumped through hoops to give them an order, which incidentally is not worth the paper that it will be writing on knew this, that's why both wanted the facts kept out of the litigation, the other-side as to the costs, of effectively showing the truth, the Court by claiming they never received yet another application, how very odd, still modern technology and the advances will show otherwise.
  14. callum1999
    That is so reassuring, pot calling the kettle black, sprigs to mind. How are application for remission of fees, normally processed, ?? any advice would be appreciated, as always.
  15. callum1999
    If the procedures have been breached, it is not my fault that the Defendants and the Court did not "adequately follow the applications" of both parties, as was the case, both were evidently aware, but both decided to ignore, it's not a problem, quite the reverse. Modern technology will suffice and will ultimately prove only only side were able to able to rely on applications as a means of proving their case.... Not that it really matters, but just out of interest does the local CC deal with remission application's, or does this just add to a number of inconsistent facts that go hand in hand with the dodgy decision made last Thursday, i reckon it just adds.. thoughts.
  16. callum1999
    What makes them so sure that your parents carried out the structural alterations's, i take it they have all the required evidence that would satisfy a Court, that your parents carried out the alterations, in order for the service charge to be payable. How do you know that it was installed three years ago, have you the proof? If you have, and i am no doubting you have, add to that, proof of address which could be obtained as to where your parents lived three years ago, your parents would not be liable. Can you proof the above??
  17. callum1999
    As is now standard, no-one seems to explain or want to explain to any facts that remotely show the application/process was not correctly followed, by the Defendants and the CC. If only one side are allowed to use the procedures, whilst the other cannot, or would not be allowed, as was the case, the outcome can only be one outcome. It's a tactic that is often used by people who on their own are completely incapable of achieving this on their own, they look to others to bale them out, come unstuck this time, time will prove this, that i am sure of.
  18. callum1999
    So if the Court considered my application for the Order which allowed the other-side to strike my claim out, and my application to set-aside was successful, how on earth could judgement be entered before any decision to strike out the claim, could possibly have been made. You cannot just strike a claim out and ignore all applications that would evidently show, the grounds to strike out would have be completely undermined but for the Court and the Defendants ignoring those applications. Seems to me that because the other-side wanted one order and the court allowed that order, it matters not that the very same orders and others were not being considered, dont think so. What you are technically saying is it as perfectly normal to strike someones case out, because the Court and the Defendants would ultimately decide what evidence should be relied upon, again the ends to secure justice, have been violated and on a number of occasions.
  19. callum1999
    This would have happened when i mentioned the Court claiming they had not received applications, i managed to get the name of the Court official who stated this. When i asked if the applications could be missing because of the exemption fee application, she informed me that the they would deal with applications for fee admissions and there was no application/s or applications for fee admission within that court. I expressed my concerns and mentioned that a number of applications were going missing and i was of the opinion that fee exemption applications were considered elsewhere, not sure. In the end i started taking all court work down in person because it was allegedly not being received by the local CC....
  20. callum1999
    Yes that is understandable, both the stress and the fact that your parents have to put up with this, it's wrong, but it goes on and they normally get away with it, cowboys. Fair play to you on fighting your parents corner for them, and fair play to your parents who like most people, do not accept as being wronged, because of the threat of courts.
  21. callum1999
    Thanks for that SV, You give some positive advice, and in particular, "you cannot supersede applications made by the other as a means of obtaining judgment" that in mind, what happened to my application to strike the defence out, no proof that it was dismissed, so we have another application order ignored, but the one that only matters is the one the other-side put in to request what i requested the same. Can someone explain why the Court never considered my application to strike out the defence????? V odd
  22. callum1999
    Of course it is relevent, but for the order being ignored by both the defendants and the courts, the application to strike out could not have been applied for, until that application was considered, by the court.
  23. callum1999
    Good luck, think you have a very strong case, remember if the Court gives your parents judgment, it will be polite to ask the court to consider the costs which could be recovered in defending this outrages claim.
  24. callum1999
    Callum can set-aside the notice of hearing, once that process was was correctly followed, Callum would have been in a far stronger case to defend it, hence why Callum part used that process. Callum was within his rights as to rely on evidence as to oppose any application to have his claim thrown out, this is further supported that because Callum was unrepresented, the rules on him relying on evidence in an application to have a claim struck out, as was the case, differ from that, if he was legally represented. Callum like the other-side had the right to rely on applications, because he is not legally qualified is most not an avenue for the other-side, the Courts and the experts to merely push under the carpet, because it will not hold.
  25. callum1999
    I had the right to rely upon the CPR, if the CC and the other-side want to ignore them rights, in order to obtain (a) hearing to strike out (b) judgement, which is now evidently premature, that was the risk that they were prepared to take. Its done now, and the evidence demonstrates this quite clearly now. As for the notice to admit facts, remembering that i was unrepresented they were obliged to produce because of that very fact, not that it makes any difference, it just adds to the Claimant being denied the same rights used by the other-side, prematurely used in this instance. In a nutshell, you cannot supersede applications made by the other party as a means of obtaining a judgment, as was the case, and regardless of what court considered the application. Very strong grounds for appeal, not to mention any judicial review, based on the Orders and applications completely ignored.

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...