Nationwide strike again. 2nd Summons!!!

[1stlifeline]

Today got a copy of the other sides allocation questionniare. They estimate thier costs at £12,500.

[steven4064]

You've got to admire the cheek

[1stlifeline]

Update tiome on this one!

 

I have recieved a copy of the other parties allocation questionaire and the case has been stayed by the court but the stay runs out in just over a weeks time.

 

The strange thing is that I havnt heard a peep out of the other side, there have been no letters attempting to reach settlement. Isnt that a bit unusual? What happens when the stay runs out as the court will presumably expect us to have been making an effort to settle out of court?

In this instance or defence is based on the fact that they have never responded to our request for a copy of the CCA which was asked for in January and in April when I sent the Part 18 request for further info to draft a defence they wrote back to say that they had requested a copy from thier client. I have recieved nothing yet.

Im just surprised that there has been no correspondence from them.

[tinkerbell20]

Update tiome on this one!

 

I have recieved a copy of the other parties allocation questionaire and the case has been stayed by the court but the stay runs out in just over a weeks time.

 

The strange thing is that I havnt heard a peep out of the other side, there have been no letters attempting to reach settlement. Isnt that a bit unusual? What happens when the stay runs out as the court will presumably expect us to have been making an effort to settle out of court?

In this instance or defence is based on the fact that they have never responded to our request for a copy of the CCA which was asked for in January and in April when I sent the Part 18 request for further info to draft a defence they wrote back to say that they had requested a copy from thier client. I have recieved nothing yet.

Im just surprised that there has been no correspondence from them.

 

 

No its not unusual but draw it to the courts attention. No CCA = No enforceable debt so they will have a mega problem if they can't produce one.

[Docman]

Not unusual at all. It's a mind game for these solicitors. They are waiting for you to blink first. Be patient.

 

The solicitors could write to you on the last day before court, or even turn up at court wanting to accept a settlement. If so, just ask for a copy of the credit agreement. If they want to settle with a 'discount', my gut would tell me they didn't have a valid CCA and were just trying it on. If they do produce something at the last minute, you will have to decide if you want to settle or carry on in court.

 

It is just as likely that they won't do anything and the court will stay the proceedings. If that happens, you could apply to have their case struck out.

[creditcardmug]

Not unusual at all. It's a mind game for these solicitors. They are waiting for you to blink first. Be patient.

 

The solicitors could write to you on the last day before court, or even turn up at court wanting to accept a settlement. If so, just ask for a copy of the credit agreement. If they want to settle with a 'discount', my gut would tell me they didn't have a valid CCA and were just trying it on. If they do produce something at the last minute, you will have to decide if you want to settle or carry on in court.

 

It is just as likely that they won't do anything and the court will stay the proceedings. If that happens, you could apply to have their case struck out.

 

I completely agree with this, couldn't have put it better myself

[1stlifeline]

Thank you all for the replies. I just thought it strange because we have 2 Nationwide cases going through at the same time, one for a loan and one for a credit card. The other is being dealt with by a different solicitor and they have been in touch constantly.

[creditcardmug]

Mine was for a cc card and didn't go thro a solicitor, it was dealt with by their swindon office thro swindon court, the staff at nw didn't have a clue what they were doing and they discontinued at the AQ stage.

I would just say , mainly for other posters that its best to keep each case in a seperate thread, as its so difficult to follow a story when two or more are ongoing in the same thread , especially when others come in with unrelated things, i hope you dont think im having a go or anything it just makes life easier if cases are kept seperate.

[1stlifeline]

Creditcardmug,of course I dont think you are having a go. Im grateful you take the time to reply.

I have got both cases on seperate threads. Both have been updated today. However I have found that the longer a thread gets the more confusing it gets. It becomes harder to get a response to a post and I have also found on occassion that people have replied and have clearly, accidentaly confused both threads.

[creditcardmug]

Yes thanks for your understanding of the situation, im not speaking of anyone in particular, but some threads are so confusing, you want to help but its sometimes a struggle to get your head around the issue.

Good luck with nw , if i can help in any way with my experience with them feel free to ask.

Regards CCM

[1stlifeline]

Thanks so much CCM

[out of cash]

hi all,

 

i am getting hell from these basrtds over the past 12 mths they have an application form and a judge which thinks this is sufficient i am defending to the full and if i lose i will appeal as i knowwhat they are doing is legally wrong under the cca 1974 it beggers belief how a judge is willing to go above case law as per the house of lords.

 

good luck to all Vs N wide and give them hell:-x

 

out of cash

[creditcardmug]

hi all,

 

i am getting hell from these basrtds over the past 12 mths they have an application form and a judge which thinks this is sufficient i am defending to the full and if i lose i will appeal as i knowwhat they are doing is legally wrong under the cca 1974 it beggers belief how a judge is willing to go above case law as per the house of lords.

 

good luck to all Vs N wide and give them hell:-x

 

out of cash

 

Just reading that, made me think that they issued in their friendly Swindon court?

[1stlifeline]

A quick update and a bit of advice required please. To say making this a lengthy post and to save having to go back over the thread- in a nutshell the gist is this:- case with N/wide was going to court do to non compliance with cca request. Then they produced a valid looking cca part way through the proceedings, we then changed defence to add grounds that at the time they started proceedings they were not within thier rights as no cca had been produced.

 

So time marched on and we had no response from other side and so court date arrived. I was really worked up about it and then younger sister hjad a heart attack during night before so we didnt go to court. I will admit that I just thought 'sod it' even though we had entered defence and gone through all the proceedure, it just didnt seem a priority any more.

 

Heard nothing for ages and then suddenly get a letter from the court and Im not sure exactly what it means.

 

It says

It is ordered that

 

1. The court cannot determine the Claimants application for summary judgement because the clsaim was struck out ** Nov 2009 upon non compliance with the order made on ** Nov 2009.

 

2. Any application to reinstate the case must be made persuant to CPR 3.9. The application for summary judgement to be re-listed at the same time as the application to reinstate.

 

3. The defendant is advised that his defence was also struck out on the ** Nov 2009 upon his non compliance with the order of the ** Nov 2009. If he intends to pursue his defence he must apply for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9

 

 

Could someone explain in laymans terms what exactly this all means.

 

Thank you so much for reading this far.

[gh2008]

it would *seem* (as long as it has the right case number etc) that they have recently applied for summary judgement.

BUT the case was struck out (and your defence was struck out) as neither of you followed an order from the court last November.

 

If the claimant wants to pursue the case they must apply to have it re-instated and if they do, you must also apply if you wish to defend (both the re-instatement and the summary judgement.

 

I would phone the court and ask.

[1stlifeline]

Thank you for the reply. Ive had a good read at CPR 3.9 and at the reasons that the judge takes into consideration when deciding if a case can be reinstated. I hadnt thought of ringing the court, I suppose Ive been hoping - no news is good news!

 

Is it quite common for this to happen , isnt it a bit odd that they have not complied when they are after all supposed to be used to these procedures? Is there a time limit within which they are allowed to put forward an application. (I put the date on my post as November as didnt want it to be recognised but it was actually over 6 months ago that we got the letter, I just havent had internet access for a while so havnt been on the forums for a while.) Is it less likely that they will try now or is it quite common for it to rtake ages, also if the do reinstate would we be notified straight away by them or the court?

[gh2008]

My guess would be that they have not applied to have it re-instated then.

 

If they do apply you will get a notification from the Court, you then defend that application (if it ever comes) BUT if it ever happens get on here ASAP as you'll need a full defence to the whole case as well.

 

hth

[1stlifeline]

Thank you again. Will just sit tight and keep everything crossed.

[1stlifeline]

Update on this one. I would appreciate thought on this please.

 

 

The case was stuck out 4 months ago. (The paperwork from the court said neither side had complied with an instruction)

I was under th impression that if they wanted to continue they would have to apply to have the case reinstated and would have to have a valid reason to do so.

 

We have just sat tight and waited to see what happens.

Today we have recieved a fresh default notice relating to the debt and a letter saying unless we make an offer of payment they may commence proceedings. (No mention of the earlier court case)

 

Could this just be scare tactics or is it a sign of something more ominous

 

Thank you

[gh2008]

they could be trying it on, but will struggle to show how the account was not terminated when they issued a claim for the full amount outstanding.

 

read up a bit and be prepared.

There are a few threads about similar actions - yell if you can't find them

 

good luck

gh

[1stlifeline]

Thanks Gh, I hate to say this but Im not realy sure what you mean by this bit-

but will struggle to show how the account was not terminated when they issued a claim for the full amount outstanding.

 

[gh2008]

well, if the account is live, you can make monthly repayments etc

 

if they issue a DN and then take you to court most people would say that that in itself signals that the account is no longer 'live' and that you are no longer able to repay it by the instalments agreed.

 

It has been covered in other threads - I think it is even a current topic in teh 'Anatomy of a Default Notice' thread

[1stlifeline]

Ok thank you, will have a good read at that thread.

Thanks again

[pt2537]

hmm

 

Termination implies that the lender is no longer prepared to allow the contract to continue, it means in my view that the contract has come to an end, it is dead and the right to repay by instalments has died with it

 

I cannot see how a lender can then issue a default notice which allows you to remedy the breach and bring to life a dead contract

 

i also am aware of a few cases which have successfully been defended on this point

[1stlifeline]

Thank you for the input people.

 

The letter that has now come says

 

'We refer to the default notice served Oct 2007. We now enclose a new default notice. If you settle the claim by paying the arrears this will bring the default to an end, the agreement will not be terminated and you will only be required to make payments due under the original agreement. If you fail then we will amend the particulars of claim so that they refer to the new defailt notice.'

 

 

The case was struck out last August!