Lowell/HFO claimform - old barclaycard debt **WON***

[fedup21]

just a thought though, doesn't actually seem fair that they can on other parties defence, be informed of their inaccuracies, then get the oppotunity to change it, how often can they do this, as in, IF, flaws are found on amendment, can they apply again for another amendment? Is it not just a case of them "changing their story" to suit their claim?

[DonkeyB]

I look forward to seeing their amended statement of truth. When they served me with an amended statement, they removed all the mistakes they'd made before but put a whole lot of new ones in. They're not terribly clever.

[I've got no money]

Right - I've had a quick think - the N244 from TR is in part a reply to your CPR Pt 18 - you asked them on what basis they brought the claim - they're now amending it to plead the correct claimant - but they were always going to do that - they did that in the claim against me where they were ultimately struck out.

 

What they are applying to strike out is your original - i.e. the holding defence not the amended defence.

 

So to be perfectly honest the timing of the service of any draft amended defence is academic.

 

In terms of a strike out application - they have to establish that you don't have a defence - basically what you do is work through all the points that say you have

 

I've got a similar case next week

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/191754-arrow-global-ignm.html

Edited May 1, 2009 by I've got no money

[I've got no money]

just a thought though, doesn't actually seem fair that they can on other parties defence, be informed of their inaccuracies, then get the oppotunity to change it, how often can they do this, as in, IF, flaws are found on amendment, can they apply again for another amendment? Is it not just a case of them "changing their story" to suit their claim?

 

No - there are only a couple of points - one is the fact that its' the wrong claimant - the other is how much they're claiming - don't forget that a claimant (or defendant) can always apply to amend a claim - even after a defence has been filed...

[I've got no money]

ah, consent is ok in the majority of cases

 

but i never show my hand to a DCA or DCAs solicitors, we all know how devious they can be and its point proven now as they have done exactly that, been devious, took your defence and then bunged in an app for SJ

 

 

I'm sorry PT but I don't agree with that all.

 

Its' as if you're suggesting that by not telling them about your amended defence until you've got permission you in some way prevent them applying for a strike out. That is I have to say wrong in both law and practice

 

The reality is that you have to tell them that you are want to amend - either by asking them OR when you make your application to the court for permission (and of course if you haven't asked them first you don't recover your £75 fee and you could potentially incur liability for the other sides costs - if the court directed a hearing of your application and the other side turned up and said that they would have agreed if you'd asked -but that is a slightly different issue).

 

If the Court deals with the application for permission without a hearing - they get your amended defence and then apply to strike out OR if the court directs a hearing on your application for permission they lodge an application to strike out and have it listed on the same date as your application for permission.

 

Either way they still make their application to strike out - and before doing so they have seen your amended defence in both cases.

Edited May 1, 2009 by I've got no money

[I've got no money]

I've just been re-reading the thread - the other thing of course is that even the amended defence is only a holding defence - because they haven't complied with CPR 31.14 requests.

 

Can I just check has the time for replying to the CPR requests expired - if it has - lets play them at their own game

 

Make an application on an N244 to the Court for an Order that they comply with the CPR 31.14 request and in the covering letter ask the court to list the application for the same date as their strike out.

 

In terms of what else you do - its' not till June - so you don't need to fiile anything in respect of the strike out yet...In fact tactically it wouldn't be sensible to file anything until about a week before - unless the order says that you should.

 

What I suggest is to file a a witness statement about a week before and possibly a skeleton a few days before

 

BUT don't panic...

[I've got no money]

Hi IGNM, see where you're coming from. In any case, I assume that both parties have the right to see any defence, and they also have the right to defend on the information supplied? So although you can hold back disclosure, the other side would've eventually had sight of it in any case, and then would still have appiled themselves for amendment. So they have probably taken the action sooner rather than later.

 

The short answer is yes - tho as I'm discovering the SJ tactic is one which an increasing number of creditors are going for

 

In Pank's case the amended defence didn't actually tell them much - because Pank doesn't have any docs yet...

[I've got no money]

I look forward to seeing their amended statement of truth. When they served me with an amended statement, they removed all the mistakes they'd made before but put a whole lot of new ones in. They're not terribly clever.

 

Yes - me too - I have to say that I don't find a threat of an SJ from TR at all threatening.

[DonkeyB]

Great idea about the counter-N244 re non-conformity with CPR request. The move to strike seems highly vexatious given that TR know they haven't complied.

 

By asking to change the claimant to HFO Capital, are there any locus standii issues - a Cayman Islands offshore entity?

[I've got no money]

Great idea about the counter-N244 re non-conformity with CPR request. The move to strike seems highly vexatious given that TR know they haven't complied.

 

By asking to change the claimant to HFO Capital, are there any locus standii issues - a Cayman Islands offshore entity?

 

I knew that this was gonna happen one day...I'm gonna have to check the rules on security for costs to see if the Cayman Islands are a convention country - if the're not then potentially you can seek an order that they pay money into court.

 

The other thought I've had is that HFO do this stuff with the wrong name all the time - they did it with my case and then when challenged amended the claim - I'm wondering if it might be possible to oppose their application to amend on the basis that they deliberately brought proceedings knowing that it was the wrong claimant...

 

I'd argue that using SJ where there is a CPR 31 request in existence is an abuse of process - there is lots and lots to say in the response to the SJ

[DonkeyB]

Pank, I hope you're a little calmer now - please don't panic over this. It will get sorted.

[I've got no money]

Getting a strike out application is frightening but don't forget that not only do they have a weak case but this is TR...anyway I hope that you're a bit calmer now

[Rhia]

Hold steady there Pank. They ARE snakes but the guidance you are getting seems sound. There may be a few conflicting statements but don't let them worry you as it clears the head I think. Remember TS at wherever they are based have a team of officers working on HFO full time - taht's how bad they are. You'll lick 'em. Just stand firm.

[I've got no money]

Hold steady there Pank. They ARE snakes but the guidance you are getting seems sound. There may be a few conflicting statements but don't let them worry you as it clears the head I think. Remember TS at wherever they are based have a team of officers working on HFO full time - taht's how bad they are. You'll lick 'em. Just stand firm.

 

The other thing not to forget is that TR only actually have one real Solicitor...and he appears to have his finger in that many pies...

[pt2537]

I'm sorry PT but I don't agree with that all.

 

Its' as if you're suggesting that by not telling them about your amended defence until you've got permission you in some way prevent them applying for a strike out. That is I have to say wrong in both law and practice

 

The reality is that you have to tell them that you are want to amend - either by asking them OR when you make your application to the court for permission (and of course if you haven't asked them first you don't recover your £75 fee and you could potentially incur liability for the other sides costs - if the court directed a hearing of your application and the other side turned up and said that they would have agreed if you'd asked -but that is a slightly different issue).

 

If the Court deals with the application for permission without a hearing - they get your amended defence and then apply to strike out OR if the court directs a hearing on your application for permission they lodge an application to strike out and have it listed on the same date as your application for permission.

 

Either way they still make their application to strike out - and before doing so they have seen your amended defence in both cases.

WHOA hold on there a minute

 

What i was saying and if i may say so, Blackstone's Civil Practice seems to agree here, is that the correct approach is to make an application on notice if the parties are not in agreement. so by asking for consent you tell them what you intend to argue

 

As i said earlier you are dealing with the lowest of low here, rattlesnakes, show them your hand early and they will use it against you FACT!!! seen it happen time and time again

 

where is the op left now? with a SJ application, no consent to amend defence , personally id have gone for an application to amend full stop

 

but there we go, if we all agreed then there would never be need for court action or lawyers would there

[I've got no money]

WHOA hold on there a minute

 

What i was saying and if i may say so, Blackstone's Civil Practice seems to agree here, is that the correct approach is to make an application on notice if the parties are not in agreement. so by asking for consent you tell them what you intend to argue

 

As i said earlier you are dealing with the lowest of low here, rattlesnakes, show them your hand early and they will use it against you FACT!!! seen it happen time and time again

 

where is the op left now? with a SJ application, no consent to amend defence , personally id have gone for an application to amend full stop

 

but there we go, if we all agreed then there would never be need for court action or lawyers would there

 

The reference to Blackstones is where the parties are not in agreement - i.e. you've asked and they've said no.

 

The OP is in exactly the same position as she would have been had she applied to the court and got permission to amend - they would have still have applied to strike out...exactly the same arguments will be advanced as if permission to amend had been given.

 

They are entitled to receive the amended defence and are entitled to consider it and to make a decision as to whether they want to apply to strike out - its' not a case of telling them what your case is - they are entitled to know it - you could argue that this way its' saved the OP a £75 fee - as she can apply for permission to amend at the strike out hearing - which she can do through her skeleton...without payment of a fee

 

The fact that you may or may not have got permission to amend does not in any way impact upon the ability

of the Claimant to apply to strike out

Edited May 1, 2009 by I've got no money

[rich2568]

I`d say Pank is in the same position she was in before the submission of the Amended defence.

 

I got a SJ application from EGG after my 1st weak defence went in. I did request an amended defence and this was denied by the court- due to myself not being able to attend the SJ Hearing- a decision to refuse the Amended defence was made in my absence along with a refusal to submit a counterclaim!! I think it`s all about shredding their POC in the fiorst instance with your initial defence!!

 

IGNM & pt are both being great great help i`d say Pank;)

[Pank]

Right you all, I am a bit calmer now.

Low and behold I have also this morning received all ther paper work from Thurnbull this morning.

I have uploaded it here the skeleon and the witness statement.

 

Apart from this they have enclosed the Barclaycard application form with is not still possible to properly read. The copies of the statements again some with the wrong details on.

 

I have not had the courtesy of a reply regarding my amended defence. Should I resend it again or should I just now apply to the court so have it amended?

Right you all, thank you for your thoughts, and I welcome thoughts of what I should do now?

 

Cheers

Skeleton and witness.pdf

Edited May 5, 2009 by Pank

[I've got no money]

This is a quick post before I go to court for my hearing.

 

In terms of the amended defence what I suggest we do is that we prepare you a skeleton argument and in paragraph 1 we ask for permission to amend the defence - so at this precise moment you don't need to do anything about it. You could make an application to amend bUT there is a fee (unless you're exempt) - if you do it through the skeleton it's free.

[fedup21]

Pank, edit attachment, details visible that can identify you!

[Pank]

ok, Good luck today. Make them suffer.................

[Pank]

I have amended the attachment. Cheers, I never seem to be able to black things out properly...... story of my life.......

[Pank]

I had got to the last stage of claiming my monies back for an very old account older then six years.

Anyway, they sent me a letter agreeong to pay me £500 something. They told me that they had passed this credit on to the agency dealing with my account??!!

Has anyone lese had this? This account was paid and closed 4-5 years ago. There is no agency or third party envolved..

What should I do? Carry on through the courts?

[DonkeyB]

Just having a look at this. Interesting PDF, lots of holes to pick...

 

Any chance of seeing the missing pages? They could be useful.

[mike1962]

If the date on their witness statement doesn't match the date on their pleadings their case can't succeed.