Good evening, she didn't want to say either way to be honest. It's dated 20th so in line with the courts CPR's it was served today which is out of time.

It wasn't so much she didn't want to say I asked twice and she said it would seem so and then I asked her again and she hmmm'd and then I went all British and didn't want to ask the 3rd time.

I guess I can only wait, the thing is though my application now doesn't have any of these arguments in it. So I don't know if I should put a different one in.

Ok, so I went into the court today.

They actually received the defence on Monday (in time) by email.

Its deemed served on me today so it was out of time arriving with me.

Is that nit picking? As I say the application went in to the judge anyway, but I imagine the fact it was out of time with me won't really matter.

On reading Part 6 (service of documents) I might be wrong.

If it's posted on the Friday the court deem it served on Tuesday. But I have proof it was served on the Monday so I don't know if that matters.

Again though, service of their documents on me that were posted yesterday (as dated) aren't served until tomorrow and they have no proof otherwise.....food for thought.

Cheers.

Have read part 6 of CPR which says deemed day of service was the 6th as the next business day from when I posted it on 3rd, 14 days thereafter takes me to the 20th doesn't it?

Yeah I'm basically gonna tie myself up in knots, I will check with the court when they open tomorrow to see what they say their view is.

Thanks Ford, yes I just need to wait and see now. I may call tomorrow as I'm not sure how long they judge would take to review it.

I guess I'd built myself up but feel deflated now.

I'll double check with them tomorrow, it will of course be my luck that they will have just scrapped through though.

I guess the judge either way will consider my application for judgement and will order either way but I'll ask the court staff tomorrow.

What you say makes sense though if I think logically, of course I'm not thinking objectively but I'd like to argue they had a clear day as it arrived at 6:55am on the 6th.

Their defence has also freaked me out a bit, just their language and it's quite extensive.

Ugh damn it. Lol it was signed for before the business day started....does that make any odds?

Well I guess all I can do is call the court tomorrow and see when in their view the defence should have been sent in. But I've called them twice now and they were clear it was out of time.

I haven't checked with the court since receiving it, when I called at 11:30 the court didn't have anything on their system but they may just not have allocated it.

Yesterday when I spoke to them they were clear that the defence would be struck out.

Is it the word 'thereafter' that gives you thought that 14 days starts day after receipt.

Also just to clarify the order reads.....

"The defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve upon the Claimant and to the court a) the amended defence.

If the defendant fails to comply with this Order, the defence will be struck out without further order".

Sorry by signed for yesterday I mean they physically signed it and dated it yesterday not that it arrived with me yesterday.

Hi Ford and others,

Ok so I've got home today and had the amended defence. It was signed for and dated yesterday.

So now a technical question, the Amended POC was served on 6 Jan @ 06:55 so obviously 14 days was yesterday, they dated their defence and letter yesterday and it arrived today. So 14 days was yesterday, so does that make them non-compliant? I've provided with my application of judgement a copy of the signed for Royal Mail to prove.

My request to the court was for strike out and judgement.

I called the Court (before I had the amended defence) and they said the same as you but they said my application would be ok because it asked for judgement.

Surely the judge can't go against his own order??!

Application posted through the Court pursuant to CPR 3.4 and 3.5. When I called they told me there would be no need for payment because the order said non compliance would mean defence would be struck out but I'm not so sure, I think there wouldn't be a cost if the court was striking out on it's own initiative but I'm doing it by application.

So I'm gonna call them tomorrow and pay the fee anyway just to be sure.

Apparently (so I found online) judges don't routinely strike out cases but I'm making the application anyway...

N244 orfoster

 

 

Andy

Thanks Andy,

In the draft order do I basically say the defendants claim is struck out, costs are awarded and judgement is entered?

Hi everyone

So Lloyds have failed to reply to the Court order in line with the Judges requirements, they had 14 days from 6th Jan to respond to the order and haven't, the order states failure to comply results in their defence being struck out without further order.

I called the Court and was told that basically it would happen automatically but I've been looking and it seems I should make an application in accordance with Practice Direction 3A to have their defence struck out.

Is this the case? If so what form do I need? Or do I just write to the court manager?

there was an 'scm solicitors' but apparently they 'closed' in june '11. wonder now then if that was the loyds one (seems like it), and if so would there have been a need for notice of change of solicitor/representation?

What are the requirements? I must contact the SRA to query it.

I must admit I haven't taking the time to fully understand the judgement.

In relation to my case, the judge has agreed to my order and I've served the amended POCs to Lloyds/SCM. The hearing date is at the end of Feb.

Is what you're saying true? In which case why aren't people still claiming on the same basis?

Lovely thank you! Yes that is what I want, I'll look at that fully soon.

Have a look here: http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=25902

Its the same kinda complaint, essentially the Ombudsman doesn't find that the lender has a duty to warn of the dangers! I'm still hunting around....my real dilemma here is that if they don't uphold my complaint and I want to take the matter to court they would hold this against me. Such a recent decision I can't believe they aren't adopting the FCA's findings on PDL's....well I can and that's why I'm so apprehensive about the FOS.

Anyone?

Does anyone know where in legislation it covers consumer credit advertising?

Have you all seen this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098810 and yet the FOS still don't believe anything is wrong with it all.

I have to be totally honest, I do have two ongoing complaints with the FOS and I'm building my submission for an Ombudsman decision but I have absolutely no faith in them whatsoever to resolve my complaint....

Hi, if you just google the ICO and find complain to us on their website there is an online wizard that takes you through to the correct form you need to complete.

You need to have read the ICO Technical Guidance on defaults document and build your complaint to the organisation (you need to complain to the organisation that put the default on first) and then if you get no joy complain to the ICO.

While I'm waiting to hear back about my application to change POC's

I looked up SCM Solicitors.

They don't seem to be registered with the SRA...

..Ian Harding is

but can a firm only have one registered solicitor and have loads of different case workers?!

All letters say "On behalf of Ian Harding, Solicitor" on the bottom.

This is all you can find

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/find-a-solicitor/?view=solicitordetails&sdid=120594&orgid=64072&SURNAME=harding&FORENAMES=ian&FIRMNAME=&POSTCODE=&searchType=S for their number with the SRA 120594.

I'm not sure what this means but does it mean they are a bit dodgy?

And join a trade union! http://www.worksmart.org.uk/unionfinder/

Hello,

Just to clarify, you haven't been wrongly suspended. While its up for debate in the courts whether suspension is a neutral act as it stands you aren't at a detriment while being suspended. I wouldn't allege your employer is wrongfully suspending you (if the issue arises). Its important to focus on the likely investigation that is gonna take place.

Firstly, who does the nurse work for? The other thing is, I would certainly question the issue of confidentiality, if you'd threatened death upon someone or something very serious or made a disclosure of a safeguarding nature I could understand why the confidentiality may be breached but under the circumstances based on what you've told me I am concerned she has breached confidentiality.

How long have you been employed there? What is the nature of your work?

Thanks

O

You need to look at the ACAS code for disciplinaries and then the one for grievances and disputes at work. There isn't a requirement but any tribunal judge would take a dim view of an employer that made a decision to dismiss when a complaint had been made about the process the employee was going through.

In a way you need to think at all twists and turns from this point forward that its all about the audit trail and that things need to be documented incase you need to take the matter to a tribunal.

In essence while a grievance is in and the chair dismisses you it could have been made unfairly, what would have happened if they'd heard your grievance? What relevance does it have on the current process? Lots! Its totally relevant. If on the other hand it was a grievance that was general "I feel my employer has treated me unfairly by suspending me" would make no difference to the outcome but one about the process "I believe the investigation and process during these allegations is fundamentally flawed because.....XYZ" is absolutely relevant and should be heard ahead of any final hearing.

Its important you draft it and lodge it following your companies policy.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes, please issue the Grievance in accordance with your employers Grievance procedure, this is quite important. You must object to the process being followed before the decision is taken. I think you may want to include the issue around this new person....just to clarify, this new person is totally new to the company? On what basis were they employed?