Natwest taking me to court ***All 3 Claims Discontinued***

[gezwee]

:whoo:Brilliant result Tex.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi Tex

 

Just means the dj has ensured your application gets a full hearing. The other side now have the opportunity to object, app to set-aside or vary order [within 7 days of service].

 

If they don't make application I'd be inclined to invite them to discontinue, give it a few days and check with the court to see if anythings been filed.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Tex

 

Would love to offer some advice on this but I'm struggling for caselaw at the mo........ in the back of my mind I remember this contradicts parts 19 & 20 [representatives and counters] but I'm buggered if I can find the source of what I'm looking for. Hoping the mere mention of it will point someone else in the right direction to assist.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi Tex

 

Pretty sure Andy is off looking for the same info, in essence its the same claim, same defendant [joint and several], same particulars........... usually see these issued at the same time and joined, but with yours they seem to have set a precendent and delayed service on 2nd defendant.

 

Have you applied for costs from previous yet?

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi tex

 

In all honesty I think you need to get the costs application in sooner rather than later so it can be used as a part 20 counter should this proceed beyond December allocation. God knows how this will play out as essentially you would be asking the court to be joined and also requesting NW be joined as co-defendant/claimant............ thats why the buggers don't usually try it on.... may be enough to go down the consent/Tomlin route and put this to bed once and for all though.

 

As for NW and their intransigence........ if you need a WS let me know

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi tex

 

In all honesty I think you need to get the costs application in sooner rather than later so it can be used as a part 20 counter should this proceed beyond December allocation. God knows how this will play out as essentially you would be asking the court to be joined and also requesting NW be joined as co-defendant/claimant............ thats why the buggers don't usually try it on.... may be enough to go down the consent/Tomlin route and put this to bed once and for all though.

 

As for NW and their intransigence........ if you need a WS let me know

 

Check your e-mail for the link, couldnt leave it up for too long

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Tex

 

Do you have the original poc still posted on here [joint o/d + loan] from initial claim?........ keep trying to check but Cag keeps logging me off arghhhhh, if its on here can you let me know the post # please.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Cheers Andy

 

Any mention of the individual account numbers at any time during case? Sorry, I know I'm being a pain in the butt, lol......... I'm sure you can see where this is going with a NW/RBS split claim and additional points to rebuttal WS

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi Tex

 

In my mind you can add the split claim aspect to the rebuttal. Assume hubbys defence was slightly acock with reference to the loan rather than the joint o/d

, not a problem to fix within w/s.......... if they can get away with a 2 year slip in dates then I'm sure you can adjust w/s to suit ;-)

 

Think my broadband connections giving me grief today and keeps throwing me off the site so if I don't appear to be responding you'll know why.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Tex

 

I'll have a read tomorrow......... when I'm sober, lol

 

We'll get something put together in good time, not so sure you'll be able to get your hands on the transcripts before the 13th though so it may be prudent to start writing down as much as you can remember from the last hearing. If you're not sure of what was said or the intent of the dj prob best not to include [for now].

 

If you get time tomorrow, have a squint at their WS again and start pencilling some notes next to each paragraph saying [in your own words] how and why you dispute their statement of events....... if you bring one or 2 paragraphs into question from the onset the rest will gradually fail and lose any weight if this goes before the dj........... accuracy is not their strong point, they can't seem to remember the effective year of cause.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Tex

 

Sorry, thought of something else......... have they issued you or your o/h with any statements of account between initial claim date and filing of this one?

 

Have they given any indication of how the value has risen? If this has been via CMS the value will include legal fees for their previous failed attempts

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi Gez,

 

Many thanks for your assistance with our claim. Okay, they have issued both myself and OH with bank statements which are dated from 03/08/2004-19/10/2010. The last amount on the statement is £6237.92 which is the exact figure NW/IM are claiming on Mr Tex's claim (exc. their costs).

 

However, the £6237.92 has at least £2000 worth of charges/interest on there.

 

I'm working on the WC now, so this will follow shortly

 

Tex

 

Hi Tex

 

Have the statements been issued in the normal course of business [monthly etc], or have they only been sighted in litigation?

 

What year was o/h details attached to account?

 

Thanks

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Tex

 

This is the sticking point......... Andy's far better versed in CPR than I but............. I have a feeling you'd need to be joined to lay claim to costs in the 3rd. Not a huge problem as 99% of costs are effective in cases 1 & 2 - this is leverage after all

 

Last case [2nd] should be the effective claim number as it encompasses all litigation to date [with the exception of o/h]

 

I may be well off the mark with this so hold fire for Andys comments

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi Tex

 

Are you both named as witnesses in current app to strike?

 

If so, prepare two statements, 1 for hubby......... gear his toward Henderson + abuse and intransigence of claimant, don't make it overtly obvious though its a statement no need for legalese....... and 1 for you - you get away with being far more aggressive in stance, not as in raaaaaa give me my money you muppets ;-) Temper it but make sure the dj is aware of your feelings by the time he/she has finished reading it. You can include reference to costs within yours. Hubby can alude to it but can't really associate one with the other until sj is heard and disposed of [catch 22].

 

As for statements of account, Natwest have a habit of hiding behind telford......... bet they'll swear blind you were sent them every month though

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Tex

 

Okey dokey, what about at aq stage of current claim? Need to get you both in there one way or another...... were mr and mrs tex named or included as witnesses 1 and 2 within N150?

 

Try searching on here [and google] for Henderson v henderson, it effectively set the standard for Joint and several claims - as for the abuse and intransigence angle, thats where semantics of WS will have greatest effect.......,Andy referred to it earlier with reference to dj's comments at previous hearing, dj's are a clicky bunch and if a claimant disregards a colleagues directions [whether implied or ordered] woe betide them if they try it on at a later date.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi Tex

 

Their reference to you should be enough to swing it with the dj, prepare 2 W/S for the hearing

 

N252 to court for sealing, usual protocol would be to serve costs on other side first and give them the opportunity to setlle...... but in this instance file and serve the N252, saves copying the same info again.

 

Everything should be heard at the same time or adjourned to a later date when more time can be allocated. Hearing would normally follow logic, if part can be disposed of it moves on to the next, if the first part wins at the first hurdle its concluded save costs. Hearing should go as follows:

 

1. SJ and witness statements for both sides

2. If SJ fails, strike out app is the next logical step

3. Assessment for costs in cases 1 & 2

4. Application for costs in 3

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Sorry, I meant, will the DJ choose to proceed with the SJ hearing first before the Strike Out hearing?

x

 

Hi Tex

 

Yep, sorry but the natural course would be to dispose of the SJ first........ if it fails it moves on to the Strike out appy.

 

You can't strike out an undecided validity to claim hence the order of hearing.

 

WS's are vital to your case, costs are secondary [for the first 15 minutes at least] but will be come into their own and be equally as vital in leverage pre-hearing and post SJ decision

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Andy

 

Sorry, I may be wrong but my thinking is SJ first........ no defence has been filed in support of case.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Not so sure, defence was filed v pl not od [admittedly in error and partly due to the claimants conduct]........ I have a feeling the WS's would need to be heard in abeyance of a valid defence before the case can be progressed.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Tex

 

I won't be about tomorrow....... day surgery for my knee [again], depending on how groggy I feel I may not be able to look in again until Tuesday evening.

 

Start stringing a few paragraphs together when you can for the WS's, you've got a few days yet so plenty of time....... post them as attachments, not directly on your thread. The other side will probably be viewing this and won't be able to access the details unless they're logged in as forum members.

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Sorry ... I'm now worried,

 

Is it not prudent to submit an amended defence to prop up the Strike out application, because at the moment we don't have a right defence in. I agree the WS's will be extra ammunition against the SJ and understand the deterrent the WC's application may provide.

 

Tex

 

Tex

 

No need to worry...... honestly, the position remains the same its just a matter of the order in which the dj deals with it that may be a bit arse about face.

 

You can't amend your defence as such until directed to, unless the claim is amended theres no protocol for amending defence. The WS are in essence now your defence to the case for SJ

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Tex

 

Assume the statements of account recently issued are in the name of both Mr & Mrs Tex? Identical [barring interest encumbrance] breach and remedy sought within their WS and application

 

Catch up with you this evening

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi Tex

 

No worries, I'll be about every evening this week so shout when your ready.

 

Knee's good thanks, working from home for a day or 2 myself.......... I've rediscovered daytime tv all over again, lol

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi Tex

 

Sorry, just got in......... will have a look through the details again tomorrow/today evening and see if we can bulk out the w/s to cover any/all counter positions from the other side.

 

Andy has come up with some excellent pointers [as always], I think you'd be well served to include a nod toward the above noted case

 

Catch up with you later, should be on here from 19.00 [ish], if you're about for the evening we'll try to get both w/s completed.

 

Not sure on protocol re: CPR12.3, but I'm sure Andy will walk you through that one if you decide it's a route you want to test.

 

Best wishes

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Evening Tex

 

Had a quick scan through yours and - Oooooo, get you.....lol

 

I'm having a read through now, will get back to you soon

 

Link below to Westbrook if you've not already found it

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2302.html

 

Gez