Jump to content

Simmonds7

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Simmonds7

  1. I am glad it is helping you, the more people that pursue IFA the less IFA will do this sort of thing. I hope you get your money back
  2. Thank you for this information. I am happy to email him and have done so. The more people we can make aware of the FSCS and WCFS ltd link the better.
  3. Thank you. I have put in a claim with fSCS against Wellington court and I also complained to the Irish regulator last year. Fingers crossed we will finally have an end to this nightmare
  4. Thank you @Andyorch I am understanding it better now. To onfirm I would not be able to issue another N322a form or N322b At £47 I would have to pay 5% of amount claiming via a tribunal I think.
  5. @AndyorchIf I did 3.1 In the whole picture of things as in eventually... It means I have to go through everything with the evidence I have from day dot through the courts? If so what is the FOS decision for, I might of well done the courts in the first place? I need to have all the details of what will happen and the full process etc as I still don't understand. Their skeleton argument is what they will use for evidence etc and that WCFS are being framed as their defence and that they can challenge the Fos decision through th courts. Mine is FOS decision. Also I thought FOS could only be challenged via JR. Is that not correct? As far as I know it is correct.
  6. Thank you. I think understand now. So 3.1 is disagreeing that the CCJ should not be set aside and why I believe that. If I do 3.2 then that is end of it and im back to FOS decision again. Can I do another CCJ at a later date?
  7. Yes I know. I said "but I just need to know what doing 3.2 means in a whole." What I meant was where do I stand after I withdraw. I forgot you read the skelton argument.
  8. Yes I get that. I mean. How do I stand afterwards. Have you read their Skelton argument? The solicitor I saw today said I can't argue that they would have to do a judicial review as it should of been done at set aside hearing. I did not know this. I was happy to proceed on the basis that FOS stands and need JR to object but not where I have to prove it all again.
  9. So once I do this what does it mean. I know I probably sound stupid but I just need to know what doing 3.2 means in a whole.
  10. All I get from my FOS (when they can actually be bothered to answer) is once claim decision is accepted that's FOS done and the rest (including enforcement) is upto me. I also get seek your own legal advice. As if I can afford it. They are 100% useless. I believe that WCFS have NO insurance and that as they are claiming fraud their insurance company would not cover them anyway. It is mega frustrating
  11. @Andyorch if I withdraw I still have the FOS decision but can not enforce it. Correct? Seeing as she is not in UK now even if I won I would then have to go to Irish courts to enforce it. She clearly can not pay which is why she has Come up with her lies. I would end up with a court order and a lot of costs and mega stress to still be unable to enforce it. Then I believe when I finally get to the end of the road she will close her business and then as they are ltd company I would have no payment. It is a no win case as I will never get WCFS to pay. I just hope FSCS will eventually cover the loses that WCFS have made. This is why I want the FOS decision to stand as I will need it for the FSCS in the future. I hope. How do I withdraw? What do I put to make sure all is OK.
  12. We have had enough. We want to keep FOS decision and leave the courts behind. She has shut UK branch down and run back to Ireland. All her other companies that she has she has now moved to Spain. She is leaving UK and running.
  13. @Andyorch allocation unless the court bypasses allocation given this is a Multi Track claim and moves straight to directions. What does this mean? We are unable to afford legal fees. Spoke to solicitor today for an hour consultation and she says we will have to go through the courts and prove breach of contract etc and are looking at 2 to 4 years at £45,000 costs
  14. Thank you Honeybee13. @Andyorch could you explain please what the two options for courts request on the 28 days. As I don't understand it. I nearly got an £11 grand Bill for set aside so am very nervous
  15. ORDER UPON hearing counsel for the respondent and the applicant in person AND UPON the respondent’s application dated 22 December 2021 (the Application) to set aside judgment entered on 25 December 2021 (the Judgment) giving permission to enforce an Award of the Financial Ombudsman Service dated 22 January 2021 against the respondent (the FOS Award) relating to a claim that the respondent is liable for losses arising from a transfer of the applicant’s pension to a self-invested pension plan administered by Guinness Mahon Trust Corporation (the Claim) AND UPON reading the papers noted on the court file as having been read IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 1. The Application is allowed. 2. The Judgment is hereby set aside. 3. By or before 4pm on 9 June 2022, the applicant shall either: 3.1. file with the Court and serve on the respondent a Statement of Case setting out the basis of the Claim; or, 3.2. give written notice to the court and to the respondent that the Claim will not be pursued. 4. There be no order as to costs in respect of the Application.
  16. Last words Judge said was FOS stands and needs to be paid but WCFS won't do that as they want to challenge it. WCFS last words was we had nothing to do with this and feel sorry for you. Nothing was explained and Judge left abruptly. I was left with not knowing where I am supposed to go from here.
  17. To be honest they were using loads of legal quotes and stating court cases. I didn't have a clue 99% of the time what they were nearly about. From what I gathered.. . The CCJ was not by a judge and he wasn't sure who ever stamped it had legal authority to do it. WcFS used a court case saying the judicial review is not the only was to challenge FOS and that they had a right to defend themselves in court. Judge agreed or though judge said he doubts the decision would be different but couldn't say for sure. WCFS said that the FOS did not make public the required paperwork on a public register as not sure if it was 3.7 or 3.9(r) That is all I can remember. I was overwhelmed, stressed and out of my depth, alot of it was a blur.
×
×
  • Create New...