Jump to content


Strike out request -suggestions?


Dissatisfied_Customer
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5423 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hey, can anyone help me tighten up the following? I am requesting my stay set aside and the defence be struck out for generally being crap (not the term used in the letter below!!)

 

I'm fairly happy with the letter, and will obviously head it appropriately, but want to make sure I get it right so that I get what I am asking for! Any and all feedback greatfully received!

 

Oh, and I'm off on holiday Sunday, so I'll have to send it off before then! Just to recap, my case was stayed and I was not informed of it until I had been waiting for 40 mins at the court for my hearing. The letter arrived on the monday AFTER the court hearing. Lloyds have never filed any papers and so this would mean to me that they should be struck out? I'm not 100% that this is so, but it is what I'm asking for.

 

 

Deputy District Judge****

 

I am writing with regard to the defendants request for a stay in the above case on the grounds of the pending OFT test case.

 

Whilst I am mindful and appreciative of the ongoing test case in London, I strongly oppose the stay and would ask the court to disregard and move to judgement.

 

During my attempts to communicate with the defendant a number of delays were experienced, most importantly with regards to my Subject Access Request which was not fully complied with within the legally required timescale of 40 days. This was due to the complete exclusion of account details pertaining to account **************** as requested and was finally complied with on threat of legal action in a package received ** *** 2007, 76 days after initial request.

 

During the time that the courts have been involved with this case, Lloyds TSB Bank PLC have failed to submit their AQ in a timely fashion and a court order was made by District Judge ******* dated ** *** 2007 against Lloyds TSB Bank PLC requiring them to do so within 7 days or claimant would be at liberty to enter judgement.

 

Following the courts receipt of the defendants AQ on the ** ***, within the ordered 7 days but outside the original requirement an order was made again by District Judge ******** dated the ** *** 2007 that the ‘Defendant do by **** ** *** 2007 file and serve

 

‘1. an itemised statement showing how each and every item charged is calculated.

2. a copy of the contract with the customer

3. skeleton and legal arguments if points of law are to be argued relating to punitive damages and/or unfair contract terms’

The claimant wrote to the courts and the defendant in a letter dated ** *** 2007 again reporting failure to comply with this order and received confirmation of receipt with the recommendation of ‘no action before ** ** **’

It is understood from a conversation with the Judge present on ** *** 07 that the requested stay by Lloyds TSB is dated ** *** 2007, fully 30 days after failure to comply with the courts directions. This caused an order notifying stay to be dated ** ***2007 but postmarked ** ***2007, the day set for original court proceedings. This caused considerable nuisance to the claimant with regards to loss of earnings for the time off and stress caused by the prolonging of this case, as well as embarrassment for the courts when it was realised that the claimant had been uninformed of this amendment to proceedings together with wasting the courts time whilst a window was made for myself to talk to the Judge in person.

As the test case was agreed to and filed on the ** *** 2007 the claimant would argue that there was more than sufficient time for the defendant to apply for a stay rather than fully four weeks past the courts directions and that failure to do so shows neglect on their part.

With this and previous repeated digressions taken into account it is argued that Lloyds TSB Bank PLC have shown wilful neglect to any directions given by the court or required by law; have failed to enter in a timely fashion arguments, contracts and supporting documentation on which they might depend in court as ordered by District Judge ******. Therefore it is with respect that as claimant I would ask for the courts to overturn the stay, strike out the defence and grant liberty for the claimant to enter judgement.

I would like to bring to the courts attention the fact that I shall be out of the country until the ** *** 2007 and shall be unable to reply or conform before that time to any request that the Judge do make with regards to this matter.

I remain at the courts discretion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Bump

If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...