Jump to content

tifo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    2,775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

tifo last won the day on April 25 2007

tifo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

384 Excellent

About tifo

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi, the company went into voluntary liquidation. I'm trying to get hold of the director's info but CH and Liquidator both are not interested. The director has given the former trading address as his contact address (he is also the biggest creditor of the company) yet not one of them is willing to provide me with his residence address. The company's former trading address has gone through several businesses since then.
  2. I do understand that the solicitor signed the consent order on behalf of his client, but does he bear no duty of care towards me, as the party he was dealing with, to ensure that his client did what he the solicitor was signing for, i.e. chase his client to make payment within the 14 days or make sure funds are on account before signing the consent order? As he was my sole contact for the whole claim, I dealt with it in the way I did because of the information he provided me. It is an unusual situation where the defendant has gone into liquidation ....
  3. Why not? I've trusted the defendant solicitor when he's signed a court document to say his client will pay XXX.XX .... There must be some responsibility in signing a court document ....
  4. I had default judgment against the company, they applied twice with N244 to set this aside but failed, the defendant solicitor then settled and signed consent order prior to the disposal hearing .... I applied for enforcement but could not locate the director to serve documents, the company is now in liquidation ... all this was over a 11 month period. Did the defendant solicitor have no duty of care to make sure payment is made for the consent order HE signed? Otherwise they've both played the system, defendant solicitor can sign with no fear of reprisals, defendant does not pay with no
  5. Hi, I took a company to court and the day before the hearing their solicitor called and agreed a settlement sum. He then wrote to the court to say we had settled. The next day before the hearing we signed a consent order (myself and the third party solicitor). I went to the hearing and the judge put through an order as per the consent. The third party did not pay and despite chasing their solicitor he always said "I'm waiting further instructions". During the claim I did not speak or deal with any of the third party, only their solicitor. The company went into liquidat
  6. Isn't that a failure of parliament in passing the relevant legislation? I haven't excluded a case against the govt on human rights grounds if the FOS decision is so 'wednesbury unreasonable'. In my case they are clearly wrong, there is a clear failure by the Ombudsman to understand the complaint properly and the parts NOT upheld are those where the policy is not clear and the parts not considered are those which the policy says it will pay for !!!! Even in the parts rejected the insurer agrees they and the builder made mistakes. I just don't know how I can be made to pay for mistakes the
  7. how can a person take the FOS to county court? and for what losses? i've had two illogical and unreasonable decisions from the FOS last year, especially after the other party admitted they made the mistakes i was asking to be rectified, but the FOS STILL decided they need not do anything !!!!
  8. No, i'm all here as I was before. No change in name or address, they can check this through credit files. Over the years i've even spoken to them because they were reporting the wrong balance to credit agencies. I've a letter from their solicitors admitting the reported balance was wrong. It's on this forum on another thread with a scan. The balance has default charges and PPI which could be argued about. At the time of the CCJ in 2004 I did not know this. 1st Credit can't say they're not responsible since they've got the CCJ. On top of that there is also the matter of the wrong balance b
  9. back to this one after many years .... 1st credit have chased for the debt since the CCJ but no payment has been made (we couldn't agree the amount initially). now they've come back again (as previously) with a letter threatening a warrant of execution. what can i do? do they need the court's permission to enforce anything after so long? CCJ was removed from my files in 2011 after 6 years ..... been nearly 8 years since they got it.
  10. back to this one after many years .... 1st credit have chased for the debt since the CCJ but no payment has been made (we couldn't agree the amount initially). now they've come back again (as previously) with a letter threatening a warrant of execution. what can i do? do they need the court's permission to enforce anything after so long? CCJ was removed from my files in 2011 after 6 years ..... been nearly 8 years since they got it.
  11. If the POC is wrong then the claimant should apply to amend it with the defendant claiming any wasted costs as a result of this. Also, the POC has been signed (by the firm) as true when in fact it contains errors. At the most they will cite admin errors due to the claim being electronically done and that no prejudice has taken place. However, if the whole wording is wrong then you cannot draft a defence. So you should use an embarrassed defence and ask for the claim to be thrown out with no reasonable grounds of success with such pleadings.
  12. i may be in the same situation ... can you let me have your particulars of claim, minus personal info?
  13. it's not too late and I will get all the necessary reports for the court claim. i don't know how they'll win. They can't change the meaning of the written word or the fact that all are agreed the developer made mistakes. it comes down to 1 word ........ 'including' in the definition of 'major damage' and whether it means 'including' as I am saying or 'only' as the insurer is saying. Basically the insurer is saying payout is limited to structural damage 'only' whilst the policy says 'including' it.
  14. The loss adjuster was from Zurich. They simply made a report to decline the claim. The Ombudsman even said this. It then went through the Ombudsman who said as stated above. The first time my whole claim was upheld but Zurich did not accept the decision and asked for a review. Parts of it were then upheld and parts not, even though both the Ombudsman and insurer accept those not upheld were due to the developers mistakes during building but that the policy definition does not cover them. No reference to the policy clause of the developer warranting to the home buyer that they built with s
  15. it's still ongoing ....... zurich accepted the claim when it went to the Ombudsdman. court proceedings due soon against Zurich after a few years at the Ombudsman. Initial letters to their nominated solicitors were sent some months ago who have offered to settle some heads of claim but not all (and the main damage). I've said I'll accept to settle these heads of claim and move forward to court on unsettled matters but they want all or nothing. i'm even thinking of a judicial review against the Ombudsman who made the decision that the developer is at fault which the insurer accepts and
×
×
  • Create New...