MBNA/Restons claimform - old A+L Card **WON+COSTS**

[citizenB]

And whats one of them?

 

Someone who does all the work you have done for no fee, however, when you win they take a cut.

[MARTIN3030]

FB you did all you could.

At the next round its probably YOU who will be raising the stakes as regards costs......youve got some time now for preparing YOURS

[fairbyblue]

FB you did all you could.

At the next round its probably YOU who will be raising the stakes as regards costs......youve got some time now for preparing YOURS

 

Cheers, keep an eye out on this thread cos i now want to stitch them bad !!! They just dont listen Surely a solicitor or barrister must know about DN's and yet they will sit in front of the judge with a load of tosh !!

[MARTIN3030]

This is true FB but they have always pulled it off because they hae relied on the victim being uniformed and unable to come up with anything to challenge.

The tables are turning now tho......Caggers are giving them a run for their money-and boy do they not like that.

[angel_1]

Wow FB,,,,,well done in tackling this in the way you did

 

yes i bet they thought it was going to be a walkover,,,,how cross they were i bet

 

chin up and more time for your own case to be even tighter,,,,

 

love it

laters angel x

[robcag]

Someone who does all the work you have done for no fee, however, when you win they take a cut.

 

Hi cB

 

I think fairby probably meant "what is a Financial Irregularities Claim?" BICBW

 

 

 

Cheers, keep an eye out on this thread cos i now want to stitch them bad !!! They just dont listen Surely a solicitor or barrister must know about DN's and yet they will sit in front of the judge with a load of tosh !!

 

They will lose a case one day using that argument, and then go back into court the next day and argue the same thing again.

 

All over the country there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of people having to go through the stress of going to court arguing something which has been proven in their favour many times before, yet because no precedent is set, they have to go through it all again.

 

In many ways the system stinks.

 

Cheers

Rob

[citizenB]

Hi cB

 

I think fairby probably meant "what is a Financial Irregularities Claim?" BICBW

 

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Oops, thanks Rob. In which case.. what is one of them please

[humbleman]

Hi cB

 

They will lose a case one day using that argument, and then go back into court the next day and argue the same thing again.

 

All over the country there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of people having to go through the stress of going to court arguing something which has been proven in their favour many times before, yet because no precedent is set, they have to go through it all again.

 

In many ways the system stinks.

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Perhaps the advice to caggers should be to issue a claim or get the claim transferred to Chester and let the judges see MBNA's tatics. That way once their argument has been exhausted in one claim they will think twice to use the same again with the same judge

[pompeyfaith]

Well Done Fairbyblue they think you have no defence and try and railroad there claims though the court system without checking there claim is solid. you life to fight another day now go sock it to them.

 

As im my case did they apply for this SJ before even supply your requested information.

 

Just trying to see if there is a pattern here they applied for my SJ in november 08 but did not respond to my CPR request until 30th December 08.

 

My Judge adjourned my trial because she could see MBNA tactics and thought it grossly unfair that the case should continue without my defence.

 

She was also not a happy bunny because the claimant was not there and put it in her order that i can decide if i want the claimant present.

 

I really hope that judges will see though this.

 

PF

Edited March 20, 2009 by pompeyfaith

[robcag]

Perhaps the advice to caggers should be to issue a claim or get the claim transferred to Chester and let the judges see MBNA's tatics. That way once their argument has been exhausted in one claim they will think twice to use the same again with the same judge

 

The trouble is, I suspect (as I and one or two others have said elsewhere) its a case of the Restons tail wagging the MBNA/HFC/[insert creditor here] dog.

 

You would be forgiven for thinking that the banks would realise that Restons [et al] are going off on these jaunts and losing cases (and therefore costs against the banks), but the shame and reality is that they probably win many more cases than they lose this way because the majority of defendants do not know their rights and haven't found sites such as CAG. Sad but true.

 

The number of people who are aware is gradually increasing, but not fast enough, and while scumbags like Restons are able to railroad a majority of their claims through, I guess that is what they will continue to do.

 

IMHO, there should be some sort of directive or campaign aimed at educating judges to this behaviour and a requirement for legitimate documents to be produced at the claim stage as per CPR.

 

Rant over

 

Cheers

Rob

[Out4Revenge]

Very good rant Rob:D do you ever go to bed???

[MARTIN3030]

FB can you please edit out the Judges name-I will unapprove this post-trust you will understand the reasoning.

[citizenB]

Oh brilliant, fairyblue. Let them try and take the mickey out of the DJ and see where it gets them.

[fairbyblue]

FB can you please edit out the Judges name-I will unapprove this post-trust you will understand the reasoning.

Ooops sorry, anyway here it is again

 

Hope Restons listen to what the judge is telling them !!!

 

[creditcardmug]

Thats excellent, its the directions i have been proposing for the last few months, and the first time i have seen them used:)

[fairbyblue]

I think i copied them from you !!! Cheers. That will wake them up

[robcag]

Re the orders from the court;

 

Absolutely brilliant result fairby

 

Looks like that's Restons/MBNA b0110xed then.

 

What with having to bring to court the original executed agreement, ALL statements since the account was opened, and proof of service of the DN.

 

That last one should stump them if the others don't!

 

Cheers

Rob

[supasnooper]

Hi FB,

 

Your judge has really got it in for Restons - looks like they are going to be well and truly stuffed.

 

It will be very interesting to see how they try to wriggle out of this one.

[tiokim]

the judge just stopped short to say as in your draft order: the original document must be brought to the hearing. wonder why???

[supasnooper]

the judge just stopped short to say as in your draft order: the original document must be brought to the hearing. wonder why???

 

 

I'm sure FB will remind the judge of CPR16.7(3).................if it gets back to court.

[humbleman]

Ooops sorry, anyway here it is again

 

Hope Restons listen to what the judge is telling them !!!

 

What a contrast to the judge I had

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/130101-humbleman-hfc-weightmans-court-8.html#post2037296

[fairbyblue]

Re the orders from the court;

 

Absolutely brilliant result fairby

 

Looks like that's Restons/MBNA b0110xed then.

 

What with having to bring to court the original executed agreement, ALL statements since the account was opened, and proof of service of the DN.

 

That last one should stump them if the others don't!

 

Cheers

Rob

 

I wonder which DN they are going to try and prove service, cos they have admitted the first one was invalid, so therefore contract terminated so therefore cant default something that doesnt exist !!!

 

Surely someone there must go "Hang on we are stuffed here, lets forget about all this nosense" They wont cos i am looking forwarded to Round 2. !!!

[fairbyblue]

I'm sure FB will remind the judge of CPR16.7(3).................if it gets back to court.

 

Of course i will, just remind me what that is again?

Edited March 22, 2009 by fairbyblue

[robcag]

I wonder which DN they are going to try and prove service, cos they have admitted the first one was invalid, so therefore contract terminated so therefore cant default something that doesnt exist !!! I guess technically they wouldn't have to prove service of the first as you have the original and are using it as part of your defence. But can they actually prove service of either DN? I guess you received both by normal post, not signed for.

 

Surely someone there must go "Hang on we are stuffed here, lets forget about all this nosense" Doubtful, they're a bit too blinkered for that, and they're probably getting paid by MBNA even though they're wasting costs. Don't forget to claim your own costs after you've won this. They wont cos i am looking forwarded to Round 2. !!!

 

And you've been given the opportunity to submit a fully particularised defence, although I don't really understand the implications of the implied 'if' of Para 2 of the orders. That could yet turn out to be a mighty big IF and could be the crux of the matter!

 

If you do get to the stage of submitting an amended defence, you will be able to have a good think in what to submit and let them have it with all guns blazing! (not that I think you haven't already got them over a barrel).

 

Cheers

Rob

[fairbyblue]

And you've been given the opportunity to submit a fully particularised defence, although I don't really understand the implications of the implied 'if' of Para 2 of the orders. That could yet turn out to be a mighty big IF and could be the crux of the matter!

 

If you do get to the stage of submitting an amended defence, you will be able to have a good think in what to submit and let them have it with all guns blazing! (not that I think you haven't already got them over a barrel).

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Rob, I dont understand the implied IF,

 

If they do bother to do what court says i will amend my defence, my staement to the court up to now is in reply to Summary Judgement as was made.

 

I will be going in with lods of ammo,

 

Cheers