Jump to content

mcuth

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,940
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by mcuth

  1. I take it no-one knows the answer to this at all? I now have the Reply scanned in (without the benefit of this thread being printed & attached, and the copy of the Rankine judgment of course ) wondering whether I should post it or not? Paul? BTW, the Court originally scheduled a CMC for telephone hearing, but MC wrote to the Court and got it changed to a hearing in person. I'd like to get that changed back, given that I have to take a 1/2 day off work for it! Cheers Michael
  2. Small update for you - we've exchanged witness statements (I was late with mine and SC&M made an application to get an unless order - I complied with that order) and SC&M are putting together the trial bundle. While putting together my witness statement, not only did I add in the detail on the differences between the DN template and the actual DN, but I came across a nice little find on my Experian CRF - turns out that LTSB reported the default date as 4 months after what they say is the date of the DN, and indeed the amount of the Default is incorrectly reported too. I think that could be potentially explosive for them in court Anyway, on the same day I received the draft trial bundle, I received a WP offer from SC&M - they say their client is open to settlement negotiations and opened the bidding as follows: A repayment plan for the original amount of the claim (not less the penalty charges) or a lump sum of £2.5k - in both options, no fees/costs are to be included and will not be pursued. I've rejected this offer as unacceptable and countered with the following: £1k lump sum paid to me, along with all LTSB CRA data removed as compensation for their incorrect default procedures & reporting; balance to be written off with no further liability on either side; case to be discontinued with both parties bearing own costs So, waiting to hear back from SC&M, but at the moment we're ready for the trial on 28th November - scheduled to last 1 whole day Cheers Michael
  3. Very much a big "ditto" from me - congrats Cheers Michael
  4. Nice work CB, congratulations - hope my case with them goes the same way! Cheers Michael
  5. Update - Ruthbridge are now offering their "debt counselling service" for this - just written back saying I'd rather they petition for my bankruptcy Cheers Michael
  6. Aye, looks like it mate - I think they're a little scared of the wave of consumer revolution taking place I don't think so I'll scan in the RTD, hopefully at some point this weekend - but while we're here, is the other side supposed to send a copy of any application to me? I've had this happen a couple of times now, where an application has been made to the Court, but I've seen nothing of it until I receive the order from the Court?? Cheers Michael
  7. Brilliant Paul - well done mate Cheers Michael
  8. Interesting - just received the Reply to Defence, which in some respects is similar to this one, but has a lot more in it, including....a print of this entire thread! Lots of thinking to do.... Cheers Michael
  9. I'd watch the old their/there thing - noticed it in Para 6 as I skimmed the document... Cheers Michael
  10. I'm no expert, but I wouldn't have thought there's a limit on the number of Part 36 offers you can make if your prior ones have been rejected - of course, ISTBC on this..... Only if you win the same or don't win as much as they're offering isn't it? Cheers Michael
  11. With them having rejected your original Part 36 offer, can't you make a new one along these lines? Cheers Michael
  12. Well Bling Cagbot doesn't reply either, so I guess that one's going off the list.... Cheers Michael
  13. No idea either, got the same request... Cheers Michael
  14. Pfffbt, you said there was plenty of room for us all Cheers Michael
  15. Blimey, I've been here ~2.5 years and not seen that yet! Thanks for pointing that out x20 Cheers Michael
  16. I'm thinking that their use of "agreement terminated" in the new PoC means that they'll be attempting a Rankine-esque Reply to my Defence whenever I get chance to rejig it a bit.... Cheers Michael
  17. So, after not hearing anything for a while, I got home from work to find the following order from the Court (yeah, I've scanned in Mortimer Clarke's copy, don't worry ): With the following attachment: Interesting - I've heard nothing about any application, should I have done? The Court says the CMC is ok for a teleconference but then makes no order regarding arranging it, etc... - what gives here? Should I write to the Court about it all?? Yesterday, I then received the amended PoC (which aren't stated as amended, so that's the first thing I'll pull them up on) and exhibits - I'll just give links to these: http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_PoC.jpg http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_CCA1.jpg http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_CCA2.jpg http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_DN1.jpg http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_DN2.jpg http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_NoA.jpg I don't see any new information that's been supplied, relied upon or anything - just wondering what the hell's going on really and what MC are trying to achieve..... Cheers Michael
  18. Hey Paul, could you do me a favour and send me one of those handy copies of this please?? Cheers Michael
  19. Yeah, but the info to be produced is a Witness Statement, not "normal" docs per se - so I don't think the strictness of the timescale really needs to be enforced. They probably do need the Court's permission, but it'll just be easier for them to present it as an agreement anyway... Cheers Michael
  20. I think it would be substantially negligent of me not to point them out to the Court I think they may well have been too keen to withdraw their reliance on the orignal one (detailed here). Shame that they'll be wanting to rely on this default notice template as "an example" of the type of default notice that they sent out and it is different to the one previously submitted. I think I'll be going through both DNs and comparing to the regs... Well, as yet, I haven't actually admitted or denied receiving a Default Notice It is also another string to the bow of how LTSB's evidence has been flawed in this case since their first submission.... Cheers Michael
  21. I know what you mean GM - I don't feel like being particularly helpful, but at the end of the day I don't think being obstructive would get me anywhere.... Ok, this is the stuff I said I'd scan in. 1. Letter guide (umm, ignore the scanned staples!): http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_letter_guide.jpg 2. Card carrier template: http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_cardcarrierp1.jpg http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_cardcarrierp2.jpg 3. Default notice template: http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_defaultp1.jpg http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_defaultp2.jpg Interesting - note how the default notice template is substantially different to the actual default notice that they've previously submitted to Court (that they're no longer relying on, strangely enough...), below: http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/default_1.jpg http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/default_2.jpg That's going to be a good one for them to get out of! Cheers Michael
  22. Well, if it was a case of requiring docs for the Defence, I might well try this avenue, though the strike out is easy for a switched-on Claimant to combat - see earlier on in this thread! In this case, it's just the Witness Statements and it isn't prejudicial to wait for them... Thanks Chris, thought as much Cheers Michael
  23. Well, I've received a letter from SC&M giving further disclosure under CPR31.11 - their legal letter guide, card carrier template, default notice template and some correspondence from PayPlan. I'll scan the template/guides when I can, but IMHO the PayPlan correspondence is just them adding stuff to the "avoiding debt on a technicality" angle (something I'm planning to address at length in my Witness Statement ). They also state that they won't be able to exchange Witness Statements by 22nd Sept (the original order said: ), and they propose a new date of 1st October - "as this extension does not effect [sic] the final hearing of this claim please confirm you will not have any objections" (appalling use of the English language!). Now, in principle I have no objections as I could do with the extra time meself - just wondering whether it is the best thing to do or not....? Oh yeah, and the line about not meeting the 22nd Sept deadline is just a simple "Please note we will not be able to exchange Witness Statements by the 22nd September", no reason, apology, etc.. just simply that! Cheers Michael
×
×
  • Create New...