Lloyds v Me

[steven4064]

What Robin said with the addition that you are supposed to make all reasonable effort sto agree with the other side what actually goes into the bundle - they then have to produce it and send it to the court and to you (and to anybody else that needs one - will save you photocopying). It seems that all you have to supply is your skelton argument and any case law and statutes you are going to rely on.

[RobinWayRobinme]

What Robin said with the addition that you are supposed to make all reasonable effort sto agree with the other side what actually goes into the bundle - they then have to produce it and send it to the court and to you (and to anybody else that needs one - will save you photocopying). It seems that all you have to supply is your skelton argument and any case law and statutes you are going to rely on.

Agree fully with Steven, only addition you may want to add is any witness statements you are relying upon.

Robin

[Viano]

Thanks Steven & Robin,

 

I have already senr my skellies & WS. After reading more can I add to these, and do I send these to the Claimants sols.

 

Thanks

 

Viano

[citizenB]

YOu will find some information re Case summary in the following link.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/57385-examples-witness-statements-disclosure.html#post479223

[steven4064]

The way I read it, the other side should produce the case summary (although you might want to check they have represented your side adequately)

[Viano]

Thanks Steven, will do when I receive it.

 

V

[Viano]

Thanks cB, I've Got those.

 

V

[Viano]

Hi Team,

 

I lost!

 

I say I lost because on the balance of probabilities I was not quite well enough prepared.

 

The day started late because their barrister was late.

 

We went into the Court room, the Judge a pleasant man, gave me good leeway to me as Litigant in Person, and then went on to to explain that this trial would be judged on the balance of probabilities.

 

The Claimants started the proceedings and within a sentence or two, after me being compliment on my Witness Statement, said that I got my information from the CAG!

 

I was out of my depth, my opponent a very sharp barrister, nuts and sledgehammer sprang to mind, brought up points of law that I thought of.

My defence was difficult to read copy of CCA no prescribed terms on the signature page, and I had not received a Default Notice.

 

The Judge listened to my story sympathetically I thought, and then to their witness's, we broke for lunch.

 

It gets a bit hazy after that but point of law were listened to, questioned and considered.

 

The Judge the broke off the hearing to review all the points made and on the balance of probabilities I lost.

 

I say I lost, I think I did, I don't think they won.

 

I was not well enough prepared. The trial I felt went to and fro', but as I say I didn't bring out enough big guns, why, because I didn't put them in my skellies so couldn't use them.

 

Any way, I think I must have made enough of an impression because the cost were reduced some.

 

I will later, when my mind clears a bit go into it in more depth.

 

By the way there was four of them-yes-four, barrister, two witness's and a para legal, no wonder I thought sledgehammer -nut.

 

Ah well onwards and upwards.

 

I will post again soon, must give the oppo time to get back to Brighton and turn their computers on to follow this, and maybe post their own comments.

 

V

[underdog13]

I'm so sorry to hear this Viano. Sincere commiserations.

[Viano]

Hey thanks UD13, but onwards and upwards!

 

But keep your eye on the thread as I will try and give an insight into the proceedings and let you all know what I've learnt

 

V

[underdog13]

Wilco:) Hope you find a reason to appeal - surely if they had no DN they were only entitled to the arrears?

[Viano]

I hadn't received the DN but there was a printout in their bundle that showed that on probability it had been posted and thus it was served!.

 

Note probability because the balance of probability was the main theme throughout the trial.

 

Probability is the core of a County Court trial.

 

V

[lilly white]

well what can i say.

 

well done for seeing this through, a little rest and lets see where we go.

 

Yes we are from cag and we are very happy that we are

 

viva cag viva viano

 

the best regards lilly

[citizenB]

This cant be so:confused: Viano, I am so sorry. Will wait to hear from you in full and perhaps this can be salvaged. I dont see how the "balance of probability" can apply to the non issue of a Default Notice.

 

What track was this ?

[Viano]

Many thanks Lilly,

 

After dinner I will try and paint a picture of the personalities to let those who follow know that in the main it isn't as scary as it might be.

 

Viano

[Viano]

Let me explain this probability thing.

Because you might have an unexecuted application form, lets say that there is no bank signature, it's a bad copy and there are no prescribed terms on the front, but there is something in the area roughly where their signature should be, and there is produced in Court an example of an original, identical, application form that shows the terms on the back, it seems to be deemed that that mark could be their acceptance signature and therefore the prescribed terms are probably on the back. Then it is probable that that form has become an agreement. the probability factor might be 51/49 but that sways it against you. Or if you say you have never had a DN but they come up with a computer printout that shows that a DN has been issued then it is deemed probable that the computer system has done its job and sent that DN and it assumed that the computer didn't throw a wobbler that day.

 

I hope that that is clear, I've read it through a few times and it seems to make sence.

 

V

[Viano]

This cant be so:confused: Viano, I am so sorry. Will wait to hear from you in full and perhaps this can be salvaged. I dont see how the "balance of probability" can apply to the non issue of a Default Notice.

 

What track was this ?

 

Fast

[kel123]

Gutted my friend, gutted!

 

Sorry to hear it, I know how you are feeling but atleast I have a second chance.

 

All I can say and it's of little comfort - at least you had the b*lls to stand up and fight - good on ya

 

What ever road you now go down I wish you luck

 

Kel

[Viano]

Thanks Kel, but I ain't dead yet

 

V

[lilly white]

Thanks Kel, but I ain't dead yet

 

V

[Dorabell]

sorry to here about your case viano it happened to me a few months ago i wish you well

[underdog13]

I hadn't received the DN but there was a printout in their bundle that showed that on probability it had been posted and thus it was served!.

 

Note probability because the balance of probability was the main theme throughout the trial.

 

Probability is the core of a County Court trial.

 

V

That's an absolute travesty, Viano:mad: You deserve better than that!

[Viano]

Further to my notes earlier, near the end of the trial I brought up a point regarding the DN saying that it could not be accurate in as much as that it included penalty charges, this point was dis-allowed by the Court as I had not mentioned it in my skellies. Is there anything I can do about this?

 

V

[citizenB]

V, had you mentioned it this point in an earlier defence ?. I will ask for you anyway.

[Viano]

Only to say that I had received no DN, but not that it included penalties.

 

V