Help

[pompeyfaith]

IMPORTANT UPDATE.

 

Right, all there has been some movement on this case again on the 26th October I had a judgement through the post for the full amount this had to be complied with by the 28th October giving me only 2 days.

 

The judgement was made on the 14th October and it was dated the 21st October 2009 it arrived late I guess due to postal strikes.

 

Anyway I had to act pronto so I got my N244 and statement into court by 3:15 pm on the 28th October 2009 asking for all proceedings and judgements to be stayed until the matters of misconduct, professional negligence and comtempt have been dealt with.

 

This was back up with evidence and a 4 page witness statement i also stated that due to the time i had to comply with the order the statement will be expanded on.

 

So now i am expanding on the witness statement while I await for an order in response to my N244.

 

I also filled with the court an EX160 fee remission form and prove of gross income this was accepted.

 

Finally sorry i not been around much these past few days but as you can see from above i have had my eyes full to deal with.

 

Regards

 

PF

[lilly white]

well we are with you .

thanks for the update

[underdog13]

best of luck with this, PF:)

[lexis200]

Good luck pf:)

 

And hello underdog - haven't seen you for a while!

[underdog13]

Hello Lexis:) Love that avatar:D Have you ever seen an expression that says 'I'm going to kill you while you sleep and eat your remains' more clearly than that cats?

 

Sorry for the mini hijack, PF - hope all is well with you:)

[citizenB]

thanks for the update, PF. Hope all is well otherwise

[lexis200]

Hello Lexis:) Love that avatar:D Have you ever seen an expression that says 'I'm going to kill you while you sleep and eat your remains' more clearly than that cats?

 

Sorry for the mini hijack, PF - hope all is well with you:)

 

Well I hadn't noticed it before you said, but now you mention it...

[underdog13]

I can always be relied upon to spot psychotic intent;)

[Jan4a]

Hi PF,

 

Just read it all. you weren't kidding!

 

I worked for a big international legal firm for years as a secretary. I am amazed that docs have gone out from any solicitor with so many mistakes. As others have said, usually fee earners amend and proof things properly - in my experience at least 5 times before they go anywhere and I do mean at least 5 times! Things like witness statements would be checked even more.

 

And everything is always date stamped on receipt.

 

And case computer file is always there to double check when docs were scanned into the system/received.

 

 

Good luck

Jan

Edited November 2, 2009 by Jan4a
added a bit

[pompeyfaith]

Hiya Jan,

 

Thank You for taking the time to read the thread, Im going to get a CPR PART 31 request off to Optima Legal Services tonight requesting screenprints of the computer records of the case and a copy of the letter i sent to them on the 15th April 2009 requesting the adjournment.

 

Just looking for a part 31 template i can use.

 

PF

[ifoughtthelaw]

Hi PF,

 

Just wanted to wish you good luck and a recall a quick tale that might also be a bit of inspiration to all when the going seems tough.

 

My OH's father (in his 70's) a few years ago took on a firm of solicitors who had made a grave error dealing with a Will he was the executor for. The Solicitors treated him like a silly old fool and disregarded his complaint, which was quite a major muck up on their part and most people would have accepted not knowing the law. All his letters were handwritten and his research came from the local library. He persisted, despite their many scathing and condescending letters saying 'go away', and in the end he took his complaint to the Law Society. They went into protective mode looking after their own but he DIDN'T GIVE UP and eventually the Law Society conceded that he was right with the piece of law that he had found in the library books. Their full set of fees of £1500 they had charged the estate was refunded in full.

 

He would have made a wonderful cagger but is sadly no longer here. He was a D-Day soldier with much grit and determination for the underdog and I'm sure he would have loved to see you win this one. There are so many muck ups here you WILL win with careful and steady progress as you've been doing. Best of luck.

[pompeyfaith]

IFTL,

 

Thank You for your words of encouragement, I'm also over the moon that your father in law got the better and won before his passing.

 

And I do exactly understand how that must of felt to him.

 

It is partly why im going this far i owe it (and optima owe him to)to my dad that I win this being as they nearly messed up his funeral hey mbna and optima where in the back of my mind throughout my dads service and im sorry but i can never forgive hem for that he was a hard working man that served this country for 27 yrs and for them to totally disregard that is disgraceful they where officers of the court and had a duty to help them to manage the court diary.

 

I will win and i will them go and kiss my dads head stone.

 

Regards

 

PF

[the_shadow]

Hiya Jan,

 

Thank You for taking the time to read the thread, Im going to get a CPR PART 31 request off to Optima Legal Services tonight requesting screenprints of the computer records of the case and a copy of the letter i sent to them on the 15th April 2009 requesting the adjournment.

 

Just looking for a part 31 template i can use.

 

PF

 

PF, as the computer records are information they are described as "documents" as far as the CPR is concerned, why not just put in a CPR 31.15 request to inspect this "document" or a copy under 31.15©

 

Alternately you have CPR18 to use to obtain the same sort of info as a SAR.

 

I apologise but I cant remember how much the claim amount is for as both CPR 31 and CPR18 cant be used once small claims track is allocated.

 

Inspection and copying of documents

 

31.15

 

Where a party has a right to inspect a document –

(a) that party must give the party who disclosed the document written notice of his wish to inspect it;

 

(b) the party who disclosed the document must permit inspection not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the notice; and

 

© that party may request a copy of the document and, if he also undertakes to pay reasonable copying costs, the party who disclosed the document must supply him with a copy not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the request.

 

(Rule 31.3 and 31.14 deal with the right of a party to inspect a document)

 

 

S.

[pompeyfaith]

Hiya Langster,

 

Thanks for looking in ill be back in a short while as i have to drop my son off to collage.

 

Ill scan and up load the judgement and my N244 response soon as i get back ill pm it to you ok.

 

Regards

 

PF

[pompeyfaith]

Just about to send the letter below to Optima Legal and also disclose it to the court in further support of my N244.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Adrian Lamb

Chief Executive

Optima Legal Services Ltd

Arndell House

Charles Street

Bradford

BD1 1UN 4TH November 2009

 

 

 

Re: Complaint MBNA V MYSELF

 

Dear Mr Adrian Lamb,

 

I write in response to Mr Robinson’s letter of the 3rd November 2009 Re: Complaint.

 

His reply to my complaint is not satisfactory for the reasons I outline below:-

 

1. You state that I did not request the bank details on the 15th June 2009 or make a request later.

 

The above is incorrect because I did ask Ms Caroline Waterworth who it is payable to and she said Quote “MBNA” to which I said how is that possible as the card account is charged off and terminated but she still maintained that, that was not the case.

 

If the account was to be made payable to you this should have been made very clear on the 15th June so that I knew exactly where I stood.

 

Furthermore just why did you send Caroline Waterworth to the court and not Philip Fellows who was your barrister for the case. I believe that Caroline Waterworth was a pupil barrister and MBNA knew the case was lost by you due to your failings and she was sent to save costs to you and her instruction was to salvage what ever she could this also holds true as to why DJ Manual was not sent the trial bundle for that day as it contained many instances of misconduct and why you where willing to accept such a low repayment because that is not an amount that MBNA would accept.

 

Furthermore because of your failings to MBNA I suspect you had to buy the debt, if this is the case the above holds true and why it is payable to you.

 

If that is the case you have made a further serious error by not sending me an assignment notice and MBNA not sending me a termination notice.

 

It is also the reason the case summary you sent to court was unreadable due to the reduced size text.

 

2. You admit that you received my letter dated the 15th April 2009 on the 20th April 2009.

 

But you did not attempt to reply to this letter until the 27th April some 7 days later clearly this proves that you did hold that letter in the respect it deserved. Furthermore in your letter to court on the 27th April you did not even attempt to explain to the court the true nature of the contents of that letter thus not giving the Judge the true picture of events you could have faxed the letter I sent you to the court on the 20th April 2009 or a day later at least.

 

I notified you at my earliest opportunity that there would be a problem with the trial date as officers of the court you had a duty to do the same to the court and manage the courts court list effectively this you have failed to do and is shocking to say the least.

 

What you did was a clear attempt to gain a judgement by default as you have tried to do though out this court case and guilty or not I am still entitled to a fair trial and within CPR PART 1 OVERRIDING

OBJECTIVE. PART 1.3 OF THE CPR ALSO STATES “The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.

 

Clearly this you have not done.

 

3. This is not alleged it is fact as my evidence which I have forwarded to court proves and I will be

holding you to stricked prove in court under oath if the Judge accepts my application for a hearing.

 

Although as you say Ms Dianne Powell signed it which I have no doubts she did, she clearly did not read and check it “lets be frank here grammar spell checking is not a hard task after all specially if it is ones name” and furthermore why did the fee earner and yourself Mr Robinson not check it before it was faxed to MBNA.

 

The above is not a “de minus” Issue you had a duty to insure all documents drawn up for court are correct in every detail and if they are not you are opening yourselves up to contempt charges which in the eyes of the courts is a criminal offence which is punishable by way of a fine and/or imprisonment.

 

4. Your response to this question is factually correct.

 

Your response to my CPR PART 18 request dated 16th July 2008 was a letter headed “WITHOUT

PREJUDICE” on the 30th July 2008. Just why would there be such a need for a without prejudice letter this smacks of misconduct.

 

Furthermore the only reason the summary judgement was adjourned was because the court office had made a mistake with the time of hearing they put 4pm instead of 14:00 this I was rightly unaware of

Until I got to the court at about 15:15hrs so the judgement would have gone ahead on the 15th January 2009 if not for that mistake which I believe was an honest error.

 

So to make this clear I did not know until the 15th January 2009 that the case would be adjourned so your argument that I had plenty of time to respond is incorrect I only had from the 31st December 2008 until the 14th January 2009 to go though the mountains of paperwork you sent to base my defence on.

 

You had as you say my request on the 18th July 2008 it does not take companies as big as MBNA or

Optima Legal nearly 6 months to respond to that request.

 

I note that you say your duties where to act in the best interests of MBNA Europe Bank Ltd this point whilst I agree you should be acting in the best interest of MBNA Europe Bank Ltd clearly from the above this is not the case in fact I would go as far as saying your company has been totally reckless.

 

Again I refer to CPR PART 1 you failed to ensure that all parties where on an equal footing as well as saving court time and expense because of this fact the hearing on the 3rd March 2009 had to be adjourned.

 

Furthermore on that order of the 3rd March 2009 you did not carry out point 4 of that order which meant the trail on the 15th June 2009 could not go ahead you had plenty of time to submit updated trial bundles as the case was adjourned to this date from the 12th May 2009.

 

5. You still maintain that the account number was on the particulars of claim.

 

Again I state this is not true the particulars of claim you have sent me is an internal copy of the claim form sent in the post from Northampton bulk centre.

 

The claim form sent to me in the post did not contain an account number in the box headed particulars of claim.

 

The copy you sent to me on the 3rd November 2009 in response to my complaint I had never seen until I got the trial bundle from you for the trial which I will add was also late.

 

6. The Default Notice or rather notices.

 

In my Defence I drew reference to the default notice I had never seen and was not served on me on the date you say it did.

 

This Default Notice you put in the trial bundle to make the court believe this was the default notice

Issued.

 

The default notice issued to me was the notice I produced to court on the 15th June 2009 and on DJ manual asking to see it.

 

This was the default notice that should have been in the trial bundle, but you did not put that notice in the trial bundle because you knew that it did not comply under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because clause 3 on that notice did not comply with the terms and conditions that MBNA supplied as the “Terms and Conditions” Furthermore the date on that notice did not give the required period after service to comply with.

 

The Default Notice you did put in the trial bundle had the clause that you say I had broken changed to “CLAUSE 8” and the date to comply changed to the “1st May 2008” when the default notice that was

Issued to me stated the 28th April 2008.

 

The correct course of action for you would have been to discontinue the claim and then issue another Default Notice that complied with the consumer credit act 1974. This you could not do because by then the card account had already been terminated and as you know a default notice cannot be issued on a terminated account.

 

Furthermore the default notice you put in the trail bundle did not comply with the Companies Act as no company details where displayed on that notice.

 

It is very clear that someone has committed fraud by altering a legal document furthermore I do that this did concern you as Ms Caroline Waterworth was very keen to see the original before going into court.

 

DJ Manual was unable to compare the original Default Notice to the fraudulent copy as you failed to produce the trial bundle on that day again the reason for this was and is very clear you did not produce the trial bundle as it would very seriously implement you into some very serious charges.

 

This is a very clear case of Contempt of Court you have been totally reckless though out these

Proceedings failed to disclose important documents and failed to comply with CPR PART 1

 

7. You state that you have acted in a professional manner and with the CPR RULES and the SRA code of conduct and that your actions have not prejudiced the case.

 

Clearly from what I have said above this is not the case you actions caused very considerable distress to me and my family and are still doing so your actions nearly lead to the breakdown of our long standing marriage if was not for my disabled mother in laws marriage mediation our marriage would have been shot to pieces.

 

Furthermore you knew that I was a stroke survivor as I put it in my defence you also knew your actions where partly to blame for my heart attack due to the amount of stress I was having to deal with and coupled with my father’s death and having to go to the court on the day before to deal with the mess you coursed is totally unjust.

 

I am also very disappointed that you have never offered a written apology.

 

Finally you state that CAPITA is not your parent company or affiliated to your company in any way this is a total lie I have done my research.

 

It is clear from the quote below you are bankrolled by CAPITA UK, It is also common knowledge that CAPITA UK hold many Government contracts so I’m sure they will be pleased to hear about the kind of law firm there shareholders are bankrolling.

 

“Capita currently provide legal services in the form of legal advice helplines, identity theft recovery legal expenses insurance and the provision of advice helplines for the Legal Services Commission. This forms part of Capita’s strategy to build and strengthen its provision of specialist support for volume legal services. In accordance with The Law Society’s regulations, Capita provide funding and back office support via outsourced contract arrangements with a number of law firms. This includes Optima Legal Services which is an independent law firm regulated by The Law Society.”

[the_shadow]

Dont send it yet PF, it needs proof reading again, I've spotted some required corrections already.

 

S.

[pompeyfaith]

thank you shadow have not sent yet as i have a few more bits to add on sra code will be posting in morning and hand deliver copy to court tomorrow

[the_shadow]

Ok, spotted a couple of things to help it be read easier.

 

Not sure on the purple bits tho.

 

Re: Complaint MBNA V MYSELF

 

Dear Mr Adrian Lamb,

 

I write in response to Mr Robinson’s letter of the 3rd November 2009 Re: Complaint.

 

His reply to my complaint is not satisfactory for the reasons I outline below:-

 

1. You state that I did not request the bank details on the 15th June 2009 or make a request later.

 

The above is incorrect because I did ask Ms Caroline Waterworth "who it is payable to?" and she said Quote “MBNA” to which I said "how is that possible as the card account is charged off and terminated" but she still maintained that, this was not the case.

 

If the account was to be made payable to you this should have been made very clear on the 15th June so that I knew exactly where I stood.

 

Furthermore just why did you send Caroline Waterworth to the court and not Philip Fellows who was your barrister for the case. I believe that Caroline Waterworth was a pupil barrister and MBNA knew the case was lost by you due to your failings and she was sent to save costs to you and her instruction was to salvage what ever she could this also holds true as to why DJ Manual was not sent the trial bundle for that day as it contained many instances of misconduct and why you were willing to accept such a low repayment because that is not an amount that MBNA would accept.

 

Furthermore because of your failings to MBNA I suspect you had to buy the debt, if this is the case the above holds true and why it is payable to you.

 

If that is the case you have made a further serious error by not sending me an assignment notice and MBNA not sending me a termination notice.

 

It is also the reason the case summary you sent to court was unreadable due to the reduced size text.

 

2. You admit that you received my letter dated the 15th April 2009 on the 20th April 2009.

 

The fact you did not attempt to reply to this letter until the 27th April some 7 days later clearly this proves that you did not hold that letter in the respect it deserved. Furthermore in your letter to court on the 27th April you did not even attempt to explain to the court the true nature of the contents of that letter thus not giving the Judge the true picture of events. You could have faxed the letter I sent you to the court on the 20th April 2009 or a day later at least.

 

I notified you at my earliest opportunity that there would be a problem with the trial date as officers of the court you had a duty to do the same to the court and manage the courts court list effectively this you have failed to do and is shocking to say the least.

 

What you did was a clear attempt to gain a judgment by default as you have tried to do thoughout this court case and guilty or not I am still entitled to a fair trial and within CPR PART 1 OVERRIDING

OBJECTIVE. PART 1.3 OF THE CPR ALSO STATES “The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.

 

Clearly this you have not done.

 

3. This is not alleged it is fact as my evidence which I have forwarded to court proves and I will be holding you to strict proof in court under oath if the Judge accepts my application for a hearing.

 

Although as you say Ms Dianne Powell signed it which I have no doubts she did, she clearly did not read and check it “lets be frank here grammar spell checking is not a hard task after all especially if it is ones name” and furthermore why did the fee earner and yourself Mr Robinson not check it before it was faxed to MBNA.

 

The above is not a “de minus” Issue, you had a duty to ensure all documents drawn up for court are correct in every detail and if they are not you are opening yourselves up to contempt charges which in the eyes of the courts is a criminal offence which is punishable by way of a fine and/or imprisonment.

 

4. Your response to this question is factually correct.

 

Your response to my CPR PART 18 request dated 16th July 2008 was a letter headed “WITHOUT

PREJUDICE” on the 30th July 2008. Just why would there be such a need for a without prejudice letter this smacks of misconduct.

 

Furthermore the only reason the summary judgement was adjourned was because the court office had made a mistake with the time of hearing they put 4pm instead of 14:00 this I was rightly unaware of

Until I got to the court at about 15:15hrs so the judgement would have gone ahead on the 15th January 2009 if not for that mistake which I believe was an honest error.

 

So to make this clear I did not know until the 15th January 2009 that the case would be adjourned so your argument that I had plenty of time to respond is incorrect I only had from the 31st December 2008 until the 14th January 2009 to go though the mountains of paperwork you sent to base my defence on.

 

You had as you say my request on the 18th July 2008 it should not take companies as big as MBNA or Optima Legal nearly 6 months to respond to that request.

 

I note that you say your duties were to act in the best interests of MBNA Europe Bank Ltd this point whilst I agree you should be acting in the best interest of MBNA Europe Bank Ltd clearly from the above this is not the case in fact I would go as far as saying your company has been totally reckless.

 

Again I refer to CPR PART 1 you failed to ensure that all parties were on an equal footing as well as saving court time and expense because of this fact the hearing on the 3rd March 2009 had to be adjourned.

 

Furthermore on that order of the 3rd March 2009 you did not carry out point 4 of that order which meant the trial on the 15th June 2009 could not go ahead. You had plenty of time to submit updated trial bundles as the case was adjourned to this date from the 12th May 2009.

 

5. You still maintain that the account number was on the particulars of claim.

 

Again I state this is not true the particulars of claim you have sent me is an internal copy of the claim form sent in the post from Northampton bulk centre.

 

The claim form sent to me in the post did not contain an account number in the box headed particulars of claim.

 

The copy you sent to me on the 3rd November 2009 in response to my complaint I had never seen until I got the trial bundle from you for the trial which I will add was also late.

 

6. The Default Notice or rather notices.

 

In my Defence I drew reference to the default notice I had never seen and was not served on me on the date you say it did.

 

This Default Notice you put in the trial bundle to make the court believe this was the default notice Issued.

 

The default notice issued to me was the notice I produced to court on the 15th June 2009 and on DJ manual asking to see it.

 

This was the default notice that should have been in the trial bundle, but you did not put that notice in the trial bundle because you knew that it did not comply under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because clause 3 on that notice did not comply with the terms and conditions that MBNA supplied as the “Terms and Conditions” Furthermore the date on that notice did not give the required period after service to comply with.

 

The Default Notice you did put in the trial bundle had the clause that you say I had broken changed to “CLAUSE 8” and the date to comply changed to the “1st May 2008” when the default notice that was

Issued to me stated the 28th April 2008.

 

The correct course of action for you would have been to discontinue the claim and then issue another Default Notice that complied with the consumer credit act 1974. This you could not do because by then the card account had already been terminated and as you know a default notice cannot be issued on a terminated account.

 

Furthermore the default notice you put in the trail bundle did not comply with the Companies Act as no company details where displayed on that notice.

 

It is very clear that someone has committed fraud by altering a legal document furthermore I do that this did concern you as Ms Caroline Waterworth was very keen to see the original before going into court.

 

DJ Manual was unable to compare the original Default Notice to the fraudulent copy as you failed to produce the trial bundle on that day again the reason for this was and is very clear you did not produce the trial bundle as it would very seriously implicate?/ implement you into some very serious charges.

 

This is a very clear case of Contempt of Court you have been totally reckless though out these Proceedings failed to disclose important documents and failed to comply with CPR PART 1

 

7. You state that you have acted in a professional manner and with the CPR RULES and the SRA code of conduct and that your actions have not prejudiced the case.

 

Clearly from what I have said above this is not the case your actions caused very considerable distress to me and my family and are still doing so. Your actions nearly lead to the breakdown of our long standing marriage if was not for my disabled mother in laws marriage mediation our marriage would have been shot to pieces.

 

Furthermore you knew that I was a stroke survivor as I put it in my defence you also knew your actions were partly to blame for my heart attack due to the amount of stress I was having to deal with and coupled with my father’s death and having to go to the court on the day before to deal with the mess you caused is totally unjust.

 

I am also very disappointed that you have never offered a written apology.

 

Finally you state that CAPITA is not your parent company or affiliated to your company in any way this is a total lie I have done my research.

 

It is clear from the quote below you are bankrolled by CAPITA UK, It is also common knowledge that CAPITA UK hold many Government contracts so I’m sure they will be pleased to hear about the kind of law firm their shareholders are bankrolling.

 

“Capita currently provide legal services in the form of legal advice helplines, identity theft recovery legal expenses insurance and the provision of advice helplines for the Legal Services Commission. This forms part of Capita’s strategy to build and strengthen its provision of specialist support for volume legal services. In accordance with The Law Society’s regulations, Capita provide funding and back office support via outsourced contract arrangements with a number of law firms. This includes Optima Legal Services which is an independent law firm regulated by The Law Society.”

 

S.

[pompeyfaith]

shadow, thank you for your imput just wish i could see their faces when they read it does cag have a magic powers that could transpond me to bradford

[pompeyfaith]

Right here we go grammer errors corrected thank you shadow for that and bits added.

 

Mr Adrian Lamb

Chief Executive

Optima Legal Services Ltd

Arndell House

Charles Street

Bradford

BD1 1UN 5TH November 2009

 

 

 

Re: Complaint MBNA V MYSELF

 

Dear Mr Adrian Lamb,

 

I write in response to Mr Robinson’s letter of the 3rd November 2009 Re: Complaint.

 

His reply to my complaint is not satisfactory for the reasons I outline below:-

 

1. You state that I did not request the bank details on the 15th June 2009 or make a request later.

 

The above is incorrect because I did ask Ms Caroline Waterworth “who it is payable to?” and she said Quote “MBNA” to which I said “how is that possible as the card account is charged off and terminated” but she still maintained that, this was not the case.

 

If the account was to be made payable to you this should have been made very clear on the 15th June so that I knew exactly where I stood you deliberately without this information in the hope of gaining a CCJ this has been the case throughout.

 

I have it on the MBNA Europe Bank Ltd Comms Log that a land registry search was done on our mortgaged property. It was fact way back then before proceedings commenced that this was the cause of action you where going to take.

 

Who ever did the land registry search would have noticed that the property is also in my Mother in Laws name this is because she was the council occupier before we mortgaged it and she had to be included on the deeds by law to enable us to get the discount.

 

For the record my Mother in law is disabled and on DLA and AA benefits so the chances of you gaining a CCJ are pretty remote. Furthermore my wife and I are the carers.

 

Furthermore just why did you send Caroline Waterworth to the court and not Philip Fellows who was your barrister for the case. I believe that Caroline Waterworth was a pupil barrister and MBNA knew the case was lost by you due to your failings and she was sent to save costs to you and her instruction was to salvage what ever she could this also holds true as to why DJ Manual was not sent the trial bundle for that day as it contained many instances of misconduct and why you were willing to accept such a low repayment because that is not an amount that MBNA would accept.

 

Furthermore because of your failings to MBNA I suspect you had to buy the debt, if this is the case the above holds true and why it is payable to you.

 

If that is the case you have made a further serious error by not sending me an assignment notice and MBNA not sending me a termination notice.

 

It is also the reason the case summary you sent to court was unreadable due to the reduced size text.

 

2. You admit that you received my letter dated the 15th April 2009 on the 20th April 2009.

 

The fact you did not attempt to reply to this letter until the 27th April some 7 days later clearly proves that you did not hold that letter in the respect it deserved. Furthermore in your letter to court on the 27th April you did not even attempt to explain to the court the true nature of the contents of that letter thus not giving the Judge the true picture of events. You could have faxed the letter I sent you to the court on the 20th April 2009 or a day later at least.

 

I notified you at my earliest opportunity that there would be a problem with the trial date, as officers of the court you had a duty to do the same to the court and manage the courts court list effectively this you have failed to do and is shocking to say the least.

 

What you did was a clear attempt to gain a judgement by default as you have tried to do throughout this court case and guilty or not I am still entitled to a fair trial and within CPR PART 1 OVERRIDING

OBJECTIVE. PART 1.3 OF THE CPR ALSO STATES “The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.

 

Clearly this you have not done.

 

3. This is not alleged it is fact as my evidence which I have forwarded to court proves and I will be

holding you to strict proof in court under oath if the Judge accepts my application for a hearing.

 

Although as you say Ms Dianne Powell signed it which I have no doubts she did, she clearly did not read and check it “lets be frank here grammar spell checking is not a hard task after all especially if it is ones name” and furthermore why did the fee earner and yourself Mr Robinson not check it before it was faxed to MBNA.

 

The above is not a “de minus” Issue, you had a duty to ensure all documents drawn up for court are correct in every detail and if they are not you are opening yourselves up to contempt charges which in the eyes of the courts is a criminal offence which is punishable by way of a fine and/or imprisonment.

 

4. Your response to this question is factually correct.

 

Your response to my CPR PART 18 request dated 16th July 2008 was a letter headed “WITHOUT

PREJUDICE” on the 30th July 2008. Just why would there be such a need for a without prejudice letter this smacks of misconduct.

 

Furthermore the only reason the summary judgement was adjourned was because the court office had made a mistake with the time of hearing they put 4pm instead of 14:00 this I was rightly unaware of

until I got to the court at about 15:15hrs so the judgement would have gone ahead on the 15th January 2009 if not for that mistake which I believe was an honest error by the court office.

 

So to make this clear I did not know until the 15th January 2009 that the case would be adjourned so your argument that I had plenty of time to respond is incorrect I only had from the 31st December 2008 until the 14th January 2009 to go though the mountains of paperwork you sent to base my defence on.

 

You had as you say my request on the 18th July 2008 it should not take companies as big as MBNA or

Optima Legal nearly 6 months to respond to that request.

 

I note that you say your duties were to act in the best interests of MBNA Europe Bank Ltd this point whilst I agree you should be acting in the best interest of MBNA Europe Bank Ltd clearly from the above this is not the case in fact I would go as far as saying your company has been totally reckless.

 

Again I refer to CPR PART 1 you failed to ensure that all parties were on an equal footing as well as saving court time and expense because of this fact the hearing on the 3rd March 2009 had to be adjourned.

 

Furthermore on that order of the 3rd March 2009 you did not carry out point 4 of that order which meant the trial on the 15th June 2009 could not go ahead. You had plenty of time to submit updated trial bundles as the case was adjourned to this date from the 12th May 2009.

 

5. You still maintain that the account number was on the particulars of claim.

 

Again I state this is not true the particulars of claim you have sent me in reply to my complaint is an

internal copy of the claim form.

 

The claim form sent to me in the post from Northampton bulk centre did not contain an account

number in the box headed particulars of claim.

 

The copy you sent to me on the 3rd November 2009 in response to my complaint I had never seen until I got the trial bundle from you for the trial which I will add was also late.

 

6. The Default Notice or rather notices.

 

In my Defence I drew reference to the default notice I had never seen and was not served on me on the date you say it did.

 

This Default Notice you put in the trial bundle to make the court believe this was the default notice

Issued.

 

The default notice issued to me was the notice I produced to court on the 15th June 2009 and on DJ Manual asking to see it.

 

This was the default notice that should have been in the trial bundle, but you did not put that notice in the trial bundle because you knew that it did not comply under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because clause 3 on that notice did not comply with the terms and conditions that MBNA supplied as the “Terms and Conditions” Furthermore the date on that notice did not give the required period after service to comply with The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and CPR 6.26 SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS is very clear on this point which you did now of.

 

The Default Notice you did put in the trial bundle had the clause that you say I had broken changed to “CLAUSE 8” and the date to comply changed to the “1st May 2008” when the default notice that was

Issued to me stated the 28th April 2008.

 

The correct course of action for you would have been to discontinue the claim and then issue another Default Notice that complied with the consumer credit act 1974 and CPR 6.26. This you could not do because by then the card account had already been terminated and as you know a default notice cannot be issued on a terminated account.

 

Furthermore the default notice you put in the trail bundle did not comply with the Companies Act as no company details where displayed on that notice.

 

It is very clear that someone has made a serious error by altering a legal document furthermore I did note that this did concern you as Ms Caroline Waterworth was very keen to see the original before going into court.

 

DJ Manual was unable to compare the original Default Notice to the altered copy as you failed to produce the trial bundle on that day again the reason for this was and is very clear, you did not produce the trial bundle as it would of enabled DJ Manual to check it against what you put in that trial bundle and no doubt the case would have been struck out and lost by you. Again I will state this is why you sent a pupil barrister to attempt to salvage what she could out of the case.

 

Indecently I do not at all implicate Ms Caroline Waterworth in any of these facts as she was under your close instruction this was evident from the amount of phone calls she made.

 

This is a very clear case of Contempt of Court you have been totally reckless though out these

Proceedings failed to disclose important documents and failed to comply with CPR PART 1

 

7. You state that you have acted in a professional manner and within the CPR RULES and the SRA code of conduct and that your actions have not prejudiced the case.

 

Clearly from what I have said above this is not the case your actions caused very considerable distress to me and my family and are still doing so. Your actions nearly lead to the breakdown of our long standing marriage if it was not for my disabled mother in laws marriage mediation our marriage would have been shot to pieces.

 

Furthermore you knew that I was a stroke survivor as I put it in my defence you also knew your actions were partly to blame for my heart attack due to the amount of stress I was having to deal with and coupled with my father’s death and having to go to the court on the day before my fathers funeral to deal with the mess you caused is totally unjust.

 

I am also very disappointed that you have never offered a written apology.

 

Finally you state that CAPITA is not your parent company or affiliated to your company in any way this is a total lie I have done my research.

 

It is clear from the quote below you are bankrolled by CAPITA UK, It is also common knowledge that CAPITA UK hold many Government contracts so I’m sure they will be pleased to hear about the kind of law firm their shareholders are bankrolling.

 

“Quote from their Website states”

 

“Capita currently provide legal services in the form of legal advice helplines, identity theft recovery legal expenses insurance and the provision of advice helplines for the Legal Services Commission. This forms part of Capita’s strategy to build and strengthen its provision of specialist support for volume legal services. In accordance with The Law Society’s regulations, Capita provide funding and back office support via outsourced contract arrangements with a number of law firms. This includes Optima Legal Services which is an independent law firm regulated by The Law Society.”

 

“Quote From the Solicitors Regulation Authority Website”

 

If you have a disability

If you have a disability and think it may affect the advice you may be given or your access to that advice, you should tell your solicitor as soon as possible. Solicitors' firms must comply with the law relating to disability. They must ensure that a disabled client isn't substantially disadvantaged in comparison with a non-disabled client.

 

Although the above Quote relates to clients of yours it does indeed also apply to third parties.

 

“Quotes from the SRA Code of Conduct which you are a signatory too”

 

Rule

1.01 Justice and the rule of law

You must uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice.

1.02 Integrity

You must act with integrity.

1.03 Independence

You must not allow your independence to be compromised.

1.04 Best interests of clients

You must act in the best interests of each client.

1.05 Standard of service

You must provide a good standard of service to your clients.

1.06 Public confidence

You must not behave in a way that is likely to diminish the trust the public places in you or the legal profession.

Justice and the rule of law – 1.01

 

You have obligations not only to clients but also to the court and to third parties with whom you have dealings on your clients' behalf - see in particular rule 10 (Relations with third parties) and rule 11 (Litigation and advocacy).

 

As you will see from the above extracts from the SRA code of conduct, your statement in your reply letter that you have acted within the SRA code is clearly not true.

 

Copies of this letter will be forwarded to the relevant bodies including the Court, Capita UK, and the Justice Secretary Jack Straw.

[pompeyfaith]

Blimey I need a coffee after putting that together !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

PF

[ifoughtthelaw]

Hi PF

 

One more -

 

No 3 - 'de minus' should this be 'de minimis' ?

 

Just reading the rest.....

[ifoughtthelaw]

Hi PF

 

Hope you don't mind:

 

no 4 where you say 'smacks of' I would put 'suggests misconduct and/or an attempt to mislead the court' anyone agree with this......?

 

and

 

no 6

 

You say 'Indecently' did you mean 'Incidentally'?

 

(Or maybe you meant indecently which they really are!)

 

Now, my OH didn't get an account no on his Optima POC claim either nor have any I've seen posted on here. Could that be used as evidence that they don't put them on and have fraudulently altered the copy? Just a thought.

 

Have a relax now PF.

 

IFTL x

[pompeyfaith]

Hiya IFTL,

 

Thank you for Spotting those grammer errors I will go change it. Oh and no i do not mind at all I have to get this absolutely correct and ensure the judge is in no doubt about there conduct.

 

PF

[pedross]

I love it

 

Pompey has more proof readers than MBNA.