AMEX & AIC & Newman

[Blue Thunder]

It all seems to have gone very quiet in terms of responses and I am concerned that after being given some very helpful advice and now approaching final hurdles - I am left in limbo as to the way forward.

I have to submit an Allocation Questionnaire within THREE days and really dont know the best way forward. Whilst I could get outside help I suspect I really wanted to keep it under the realms of the CAG, as there appears to be far more experience here and its through them that I have got this far to date.

In particular I am keen to hear from any members of the the Site Team that have had recent experience with the imbeciles working on behalf of Amex - or compiling AQ's and a defence.

PT2537 - I know you helped Padders win his case recently and also appreciate that you have indicated no PM's - but is there anything you can do to help??

I need to fill in the AQ as efficiently as possible - I believe I have certainly got the higher ground at present and unlike the Rankine case that I read with interest - I have the moral ground also - but legally speaking of course, morals are 'set aside' (to coin a phrase) in these cases.

I believe the thread gives much information but am willing to disclose the details with anybody that can help.

I would hate to fall at this late stage having come so far - but am concerned at the silence from recent requests of mine.

 

Many thanks

Blue

[Blue Thunder]

thanks for the response - but I shouldnt really use that triangle to gain attention - should I?

Its more for reporting purposes isnt it?

[Blue Thunder]

Thanks CP - have done.

I really need general help and advice in how best to fill it out with out jeopardising my case.

eg. Q1 do I want to attempt to settle?

Q2 do I want a month stay - mediation etc etc etc

What did you do in yours? Are you going for an unexcuted agreement??

 

Thanks Blue

[Blue Thunder]

HI PT,

yes the original agreement was posted by me on 19th November 2007 earlier in this thread. You did take a look and gave me your comments at the time.

I wondered whether or not things had changed since then.

In all correspondence with Newmans, stevens drake and Amex they refer to this as an executed agreement as it was combined with Terms and conditions on the back of it. Even though they have sent me two different versions of T's and C's through the course of this.

Having never done anything like this before I am concerned as to not make mistakes and get it right.

I havent sent a full defence in yet - do I do that at this stage or just fill in the AQ. I have over 40 documents backwards and forwards - do I need to disclose them at this time?

I appreciate how busy you are Paul and any help will be really welcome.

Thanks

Blue

[Blue Thunder]

Thanks CP

 

Just one question: Did you send copies of all correspondence you had - back with the AQ as part of a defence - or are you keeping that back as a formal defence when needed. Does it need to be defended at AQ stage or is the policy just to stick to the 'unable to supply a properly executed agreement' at this point.

 

Thanks again

BT

[Blue Thunder]

Ok - thanks for your help PT and CP.

 

Will send off as you suggest.

regards

BT

[Blue Thunder]

Hi CP and PT,

 

Sorry - something else has emerged!

 

On the page for 'Other Information' on the AQ should I make reference to my 'Request For Information' letter which I sent to SD. They responded by only enclosing the alleged executed agreement (the application form), an earlier letter which detailed a file referral charge (which inludes AIC and Newman fees - although it doesnt specify this) and a copy of an account statement which was for one specific month (which was 7 months after the alleged default and three months before they took over the case). They then went on to say that all other documents I had requested were not under 'Automatic Disclosure' and referred me to part 31 of the Civil Procedure rules. They stated that their client "is not therefore obliged to provide you with any document by way of disclosure until such time as the Court orders by way of either Standard Disclosure or an Order for Specific Disclosure."

They do invite me to send my "application and your full grounds for requesting the original documentation" if I require Disclosure of any documents prior to an Order for Standard Disclosure being made by the court.

One would have assumed therefore that my Request for Information covered this point in the first place and is somewhat contradictory to their previous statement that their 'Client is not obliged'.

 

So, the question remains - should I make reference to this in the AQ and send copies of these documents as I believe they have contributed to delaying tactics. Do I also complete the box relating to 'other information you consider will help the judge to manage the claim'.

 

Thanks

BT

[Blue Thunder]

Thanks Tinkerbell.

It certainly looks the business - but should i send it at this stage AND refer to it in the AQ.

I'm just confused as to the procedures and in which order I need to do them. I am requesting as Stay of 1 month - so does this form part of that 'stay'. Also, if that is the case, do I tick the box marked 'Do I intend to make any applications in the immediate future' as 'yes' and when it asks 'If yes, what for?' do I refer to this request OR do I wait for the Courts instructions - gee - this is a minefield when you get into it!

Thanks again

BT

[Blue Thunder]

Hi PT,

do you have any comments to make? Sending AQ back today!

[Blue Thunder]

Ok - thanks for your help again PT.

No -one else to help me - so I will just go with what I have and 'wing' it!

 

Thanks

BT

[Blue Thunder]

what's that supposed to mean then? seen it on a few threads from the same poster??????

[Blue Thunder]

As an update, have received the enclosed.

Can anybody advise how I should respond. Cant afford a Brief, cant get legal aid and their offer is pretty pointless to me. Does anybody feel I still have a case to fight in court and if so whats my next step please?

SD211008.pdf

SD211008 offer.pdf

[Blue Thunder]

Ok - am trying upoad again.

SD211008.pdf

SD211008 offer.pdf

[Blue Thunder]

aaaah yes - very clever.

Any thoughts on my post PT? the one with the attachments of course.

[Blue Thunder]

ok - try these

sd21010801.pdf

sd21010802.pdf

[Blue Thunder]

mmm........ interesting comments Scarlet. At the end of the day this is what I have been fighting all the way through - and if you go back to the beginning of this thread you will see that the comments indicated it was totally unenforceable - I dont know if I'm playing with fire or not. I have had to take on board what has been said through this site and I have felt reasonably confident all the way through. I suppose realistically only time will tell. I respect yours and PT's comments to date along with all other contributors. Having posted the original agreements on here and being led to believe they were unenforceable I suppose the big day approaches when I found out how true this is!! Frightening really - as never been here before and really gone out on a limb to fight my corner!

 

Other comments are of course very welcome.

Thanks

 

Blue

[Blue Thunder]

well - this is already in court and this is their response to the Judges Order for a One month stay - so I AM in the legal process presumably and have to act accordingly with my response - that is always my fear (that I say or do the wrong thing out of naivety) thats why I always welcome the observations and comments of those more seasoned professionals in this game.

[Blue Thunder]

Message for PT - do you have any comments to make please?

[Blue Thunder]

Hi Blue Thunder.

 

Stick with it. I'm a little bit further down the road with Amex and Co. Allocation Questionnaires and Court Directions have been dealt with and Amex has failed to supply paperwork as directed by the court, naughty bunnies, so my day in court opposite them is only a few weeks away. As they've ignored court directions the judge should begin with a rollicking of their representative. That's if it gets that far, here's hoping.

 

CP

 

Hey Cunning Plan,

You osted on this thread back in August.

 

Did you ever get further down the road with these clowns??

[Blue Thunder]

As an update.

 

Having had an extended stay from the courts in an attempt to negotiate with these clowns and despite them telling me they were pressing on with their claim against me. I was surprised to receive a leeter from them referring to my original defence and it goes like this.............

" We refer to your defence dated........... Within the same, you allege that the Agreement was not properly executed and does not contain the prescribed terms and is therefore unenforceable in law.

We invite you to particularise the terms you contend are omitted from the Agreement and furthermore, the basis for so contending."

 

They give me 14 days to respond.

 

As I expected to lay the 'facts' down before the judge - as this is the whole basis of my defence - are they entitled to ask and by doing so how does this appear in the eyes of the law. I feel as the 'ace' up my sleeve could be dropped before i get the chance to use it.

 

any thoughts would be welcome.

 

Thanks

Blue

[Blue Thunder]

Thanks for your reply BRW.

Am planning to do just that!

 

BT

[Blue Thunder]

Hi CP,

 

My court case is imminent - they are pushing it all the way - I dont know which way it will go but I am quietly confident. I am really interested to know why they backed down on yours - if you dont want to share the info to all and sundry please feel free to PM me or do you have a thread.

 

Cheers

 

Blue

[Blue Thunder]

HI BRW,

Thanks for the input.

AMEX did actually issue a Default Notice under Section 87(1) to me - so I'm not sure how this affects your argument?

Please explain if poss?

Thanks

Blue

[Blue Thunder]

Hi CP,

 

Thanks for your update - pleased to hear it went well for you.

What is a Consent Order and how did that affect you with your debt. Did you effectively win the case therefore and it was struck out?

 

Cheers

Blue

[Blue Thunder]

Brilliant - thanks BRW.

Will take a look and see whats what - thanks for your help.

Cheers

Blue